Family Attorney

National partners employees of the State of Arizona, is homosexual or obliquely, health coverage and services under a new plan approved Tuesday by the Governor’s Regulatory Review. The three members abstaining or missing, the group agreed to allow 4-0 benefits of enlargement. Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano has pushed the plan at the forefront of the debate over the past year.

Whether it will be renewed or non-governmental, national partner benefits is a very controversial issue. Those who oppose homosexuality, gay marriage and / or some form of legalized domestic partnerships against the extension of little medical care or other benefits to gay partners of government workers.

On the reverse, homosexuals are well represented in the government - even if nobody asks, and nobody said. As such, she and others support gay rights agenda, including gay marriage and recognition of domestic partnerships, believe that gay partner deserve the same benefits by the spouse, bureaucrats right .

One of the benefits for members of the military and military Congress on fact-finding missions includes a free space - if one is empty - on military flights. But this provision has been very taunting in the last days.

After policies, the cavity before Easter, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was forced to intervene, Defence Minister Robert Gates, to Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin’s national partners on a military flight to a conference-Fact-Finding Trip to the Europe. ”

Since Baldwin’s home state of Wisconsin not officially recognized, same-sex marriages, military units and officials were not willing to discuss their partners a “marriage", while the two women exchanged their wedding vows.

It is rare for positions of public expenditure to such an influence on the federal government, as members of Congress a partner would be prohibited by a military aircraft. The scenario magic alive, Hollywood-esk image of a woman on the basis of officials in uniform, while her lover is promoted in foreign countries. There also appears to be a throwback to the days of segregation transportation, among blacks do not enjoy the same rights as whites.

Pragmatic view, marriage is a social contract honoured by the State. That’s why we need to as much paperwork. If there is only a spiritual event, a religious who would need to preside over the ceremony. It seems quite logical that this type of contract must be determined for each individual. In no other case - with the exception of minors - an individual can be excluded from entering into an agreement with another. So why is it fair to exclude subscription Gays marriage with the other?

It is not fair, but some concerns that the “sanctity of marriage” would be ruined by the State should be tolerant of homosexuality. Well, the sanctity of marriage is already ruined half of the time when 50% of marriages ending in divorce. In addition, those who get married for green cards, money, fame, out of fear or as part of a reality television show - yes, unfortunately, I have been subjected to the license - even chip on the sanctity of marriage in this perspective. Let us say that the marriage of a beautiful thing, if this does not work, but with chalk or an ideal standard beyond what it is: a contractual commitment between the two to oblige PEOPLE their love and loyalty to another.

Arizona Janet Napolitano Governor’s Regulatory Review Council agreed unanimously to grant benefits to domestic partners of state employees. Critics said that the benefits of the new rule revisions, the institution of marriage. Gays and lesbians partners welcomed the measure. Marriages between persons of the same opinion about later, some people react negatively to messages purely budgetary. The Governor’s Office says that the costs for national partners would offer advantages, of course, the fact that Arizona would be more competitive in the production and retention of the best talent.

This means that the new directive as from 1 October 2008 employees in the provision that the State families may opt for medical, dental and other benefit coverage options. National partners of qualification. It is estimated that fewer than 1000 employees work for the state of Arizona would be affected by the rule. Although some workers of the state domestic partnerships in other Member States have already taken such benefits, to less than half of the United States were at the moment.

So it is a fact much? I expect that the litigation to overturn decision is imminent. Time will tell.

Integrated Management Information, Inc. (IMI Global) (OTCBB: INMG), a leading supplier of test instruments and Internet solutions for agriculture / livestock, industry, announced today that it has signed an agreement, the exclusive distributors of global brand “Do ® & Born in the USA” label. The agreement defines IMI Global in a strong position to move the industry to mandatory labeling of all meat products in the identification of the country of origin. There are 87 billion pounds of meat produced in the United States each year.

In view of the 2002 Farm Bill, retailers in Germany must appear on the packaging label for determining the country of origin (COOL) for meat products, including cattle, pork, lamb and fish, beginning in the fall of 2008. The Born & Raised ® in the USA label at the moment on a voluntary basis, and not on the selected products offers retailers, manufacturers and processors is streamlined and good third revision of the programme as through support and promotion of meat products Inländischen.

“The deadline for national retailers begin ads labeling of the country of origin closer quickly, this agreement is a timely and perhaps one of the most important global partnerships IMI has been a part,” said John Saunders , President and CEO of IMI Global. “We believe the Born & Raised ® in the United States-Label, IMI’s third verification systems, to find wide acceptance by the National Packer and retailers who are under the mandate of the beginning of the end of this year . mark, which Shown a prominent American Flag, is a visual assessment convincingly that we feel we appeal to packers and retailers to take over, by giving consumers an easy and visible to identify the label d a product exclusively born, raised and the United States. IMI Global Is a national standard setting in the third - and verification services, we have a confirmation of food systems since 1995, production for sale Retail and retailers have developed more than 60% of all USDA PVP and QSA programs in the United States. As a result, we are well positioned for this label to promote respect COOL Both for our customers. Our goal is Born & Raised ® in the United States, the industry standard. ”

Saunders, “said Born & Raised ® in the USA label program has been developed over seven years by Carolyn Carey, founder and president of Born & Raised ® in the United States, the industry has seen the holding of the leadership and remained for several years before labelling of the country of origin had become a reality.

Carey added that IMI Global was an obvious choice as a partner for exclusive marketing. “IMI Global is highly respected confirmation to the organization with a full range of experience, a chip Bluetooth and a strong customer track record in working with the USDA,” she said. “We are excited about the possibility of roll-out Born & Raised ® in the United States for retail and packers of Germany and give them a solution COOL easily achieved at no additional cost to the cow-calf producers .

A long-standing customer of Born & Raised in the United States, Western Grasslands ®, Inc. dba Panorama Meats, Inc. www.PanoramaMeats.com, producers of Panorama Natural Grass-Fed Beef ™ and Panorama Organic Grass-Fed Beef ( TM). Based in Vina, California, markets Panorama grass-natural and organic beef on nutrition and diet and natural traditional operators, retail trade of foodstuffs, such as Whole Foods and Trader Joe United States .

About IMI Global

Founded in 1995, IMI Global is a leading supplier of test and Internet solutions for agriculture. Go to www.IMIGlobal.com for more information. IMI has partnered with some of the largest farm organizations in the United States, providing applications based on the web for verification and identification, as well as a wide range of consulting services tailored to the needs of each client. IMI belong www.CattleNetwork.com operations, an online service of the supply market and industry news, information on the cattle www.CattleStore.com and Industry, an online source for fed animals, as animal identification, medical equipment and veterinary supplied. IMI additional websites containing www.USVerified.com, and www.AgNetwork.com www.PetSupplyVerified.com.

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT

This press release contains “forward-looking statements” as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, based on current forecasts, estimates and forecasts at risk. Statements statements that are, by nature, uncertain, and actual events could materially from forecasts of the company. Key factors that lead to real events that vary from the estimates include, in particular, in our SEC. In particular, statements in this release of Press on growth, profitability, potential, leadership, impact and effectiveness of the company’s products and services on the market, and prospects for Born & Raised ® in America program labelling are forward-looking, sub-residence of a large number of factors, including the availability of funds, personnel and other resources, competition, state regulation of the industry for beef on the market for beef and other factors to be taken into account. Furthermore, the financial results for the three and nine months are not necessarily indicative of future results. Readers should not be unduly on these forward-looking statements. The company disclaims any obligation to update its forward-looking statements light of new information or adapt to the changes. For a more detailed discussion of the Corporation’s business, please contact the SEC at www.sec.gov society.

The Governor’s Regulatory Tuesday, the Council approved a measure, by the hands of Gov. Janet Napolitano to extend benefits to the government and workers, public institutions of higher education are part of domestic demand unmarried partnerships.

The move is to allow unmarried couples, including same-sex partners who meet certain criteria in order to protect human health and the same benefits as married couples. Members of unqualified couples would also in the plan.

Napolitano Behind men, and others say it’s just for the extension of benefits. Equal rights for homosexuals Arizona group said Tuesday that many companies, states and universities offer such benefits.

The conservative Republicans against the draft say that married workers should be able, benefits for spouses and their children. The question of whether the Governor may not, without the approval of the legislative changes. There are legislative proposals in view of the action, scheduled for October to come into force.

The state law prohibits same-sex marriages.

(Luxembourg), based in Luxembourg, the European Court of Justice Tuesday, that if a company provides pension benefits for married partners of employees must be the same as benefits for same-sex partners.

The case concerned Tadao Maruko, a German of 65, who, when he pleaded for marriage benefits from the company her husband had worked.

The management of pension funds said that, because the couple was not married was Maruko could not be taken into account.

For three years, fought Maruko the case. He lost in a German court and the right to the procedure of the Tribunal referred the case to court to demand of the Union of Judges, in order to determine whether domestic partnerships should be at par with marriage and as pension funds discrimination occurred.

Germany can to certain rights for same-sex couples, but does not have a civil marriage or partnerships.

“The refusal of granting the survivor’s pension for life of a direct partner from discrimination based on sexual orientation, if the surviving spouses and surviving spouses are in a comparable situation with regard to retirement, Tuesday,’’said the judge in his written decision.

Decision by Germany provides judges in the case to determine the status of the pension.

The decision is also a benchmark for companies and governments across the European Union to offer recognition of all same-sex couples ..

The International Lesbian and Gay Association - Europe argue the case in court.

“We welcome today’s decision by the European Court of Justice, as well as its strong wording clearly indicates that the refusal to grant a pension to a surviving partner in the life of the immediate orientation discrimination Sexual “and therefore can not be justified in each circumstance,” says Patricia Prendiville, Executive Director of ILGA-Europe.

Prediville But at the same time that the ILGA-Europe is concerned about the fact that the decision has no direct legal consequences same-sex partners in the European Union countries, which do not recognize yet, the lives of gay communities.

“This creates a two-class discrimination in the level of protection of lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens of the EU, which are divided into two categories, as is their access to survivors’ pension rights depends on their country of residence . ”

Opponents of the national production of Oregon voters want partnerships repealing a law passed in 2007 establishing rights for lesbians and gay couples.

State Rep. Sal Esquivel, R-Medford, state Senator Gary George, R-McMinnville, and former Senator Marilyn Shannon Brooks initiative of the petition filed by 146 on Monday, Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury. It aims at the elimination House Bill 2007, the Equity Act family, and rightly so, January 1st

The petition seeks 82,769 signatures to qualify for the Nov. 4 ballot.

The Secretary of State is the adoption, if the process input on the initiative of constitutional errors, needs signatures to put into circulation. The deadline for comments is April 22.

The initiative proposes that domestic partnerships not to grant any individual, the privileges, immunities, rights and benefits of the Marriage Act of individuals. In addition, provides that any liability, the law on the person who is or has been married Do not be imposed on the person or domestic partnership. ”

The family of fairness is a controversial law two bills, the gay and lesbian Oregonians law was that, in this year. The other, Oregon Equality Act, which prohibits discrimination in the workplace and in housing and public accommodations.

Initiative 146 is the latest attempt, asking voters to overturn the new laws.

Initiative 144 domestic partnership repeal of the legislation, was arrested on February 29.

Initiative 145, the abolition of Oregon Equality Act, and was signed on March 3.

None of the measures proposed ballots have been certified.

EON Capital Bhd is it just a strategic tie-ups with a large bank in China, and another in the Middle East in the second half of this year, to ensure consistency with the platforms, press on the fast-growing markets.

The entrance of Primus Pacific as a strategic partner of the investor capital EON early February is a boost for banks of the group to strengthen its presence in the local market, but also Malaysia on reports on partnerships.

“The second half of the year is a very exciting period for EON Capital,” Primus manager Ng Wing-Fai said, adding that negotiations should begin in the coming months and the two partners would have to type EON Capital You in the world’s two largest sources of capital - in the Middle East and China.

“We want to put online interconnection between Malaysia and investors in the Middle East. We can finance a variety of projects with investors from the Middle East and China, “he said.

Ng is optimistic about the prospects for EON Capital tie-ups, adding: “We have asked our partners Islamic Banking and China, with a division of the Chinese mainland banks. It is only from the outside and not the domestic market or the front. ”

However, he explained, the tie-ups that did not participate in a sale, as “we do not want a change in the structure of participation EON Capital for some time.”

According to Ng, many banks in the Middle East and China, had proposed to cooperation with the EON Capital since Primus announced that they had purchased a stake of 20.2% in EON Capital RM1.337bil or for a In part RM9.55 DRB-HICOM Bhd unit HICOM Holdings Bhd early February.

Ng sees great potential for the EON Capital Bank Islamic Affairs and expected to grow by 25% by the Islamic Bank of fortune each year for the bank, for the future, vis-à-vis de l’industrie 15 %.

On the China department of the Bank, said Ng, that promote Malaysia and China-commerce. It allows the bank for corporate financing of trade and investment flows, financing by the Malaysian company to invest in China and vice-versa.

Another component is the property of the bank financing can be carried over to Chinese investors, including 100 to 200 million middle class who, under the Malaysia My Second Home Systems.

On the home front, “said Ng EON Capital invests US $ 200mil would be in the next 12 to 18 months in the investment bank.

“We, the heavy investment in retail banking,” he said, adding that investment in the renovation would be branches, including internal computer skills for the recruitment and training of people and centralization of some of its operations .

“The change of the franchise-EON Capital is on the right track. There will be many changes in the street or on the basis from now on.

“We will see an impact bottom line in this exercise as well. However, it will be within the next year of primary importance,” he said.

EON Bank Group Chief Executive Officer, Albert Lau says, have a strong and capable management team on the bench.

The banks in the group, the appointment of a new Chief Financial Officer, in two weeks. A new Chief Operating Officer, is also expected on board soon.

Ng said the Bank’s internal growth would be the bank’s retail banking and SME-Islamic Banking.

The icing on the cake, the group of strategic tie-ups with the Near and Middle East and Chinese partners.

“We are convinced that a bank of our size, openness and capacities should be a return of the return on equity (ROE) of 15% at 18 to 24 months of our current 6% to 7%.

“This is why we are investing a lot of money in our business. We want a good bank, so that the return on equity can be achieved and sustained,” he said.

EON is predictable Ng-Capital Regional jump on the train expansion by acquiring banks overseas?

“This will be our next phase of growth - perhaps the end of next year. I have a long list of banks in China to EON Capital to buy. There is no rush, “he said.

A 9 / 11 on the health of survivors’ benefits by its offer of domestic partnership. Then there was a transfer of Idaho - and a loss of health to preserve.

Thus, 365Gay.com reported in a story published on March 24

Robert Ryan, has been published in the insurance industry licensing of Morgan Stanley with an office in the south tower of the WTC,. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Ryan was in the workplace, office, which focuses on the 74th floor of the building, when the northern part of the tour was American Airlines, Flight 11

Given that the people of the south tower of the building fled, United Flight 175 plowed into the structure. Ryan, who is still in the building, were trampled underfoot during the panic.

Although the building before collapsing, Ryan’s injuries and psychological trauma, he made it necessary for a disability for a year. Meanwhile, he has savings, it would be at his retirement.

Ryan and Ralph Martinelli met in 2004 and was chosen as the national partner in the State of New Jersey in 2005. At this point, Ryan’s medical costs were Konica Minolta, preserve health.

The couple moved to give Ryan ID a change of scenery and enable it to escape reminders every day the days following the attacks. But his physical and psychological wounds have insisted, and they are costly to treat.

But since ID law, on the contrary, quite rightly, NJ, not for lesbians and gay families, the mechanisms for such protection, the company fired Ryan to preserve health.

365Gay.com reported that Konica Minolta said that his policy of national coverage through their health insurance if their employees live in countries where local partnerships can be registered, or in which the equality of marriage is available to all World Faire.

At present, MA are just full equality of marriage. Only six states and the District of Columbia National Partnership for residents. The United States are among CA, HI, ME, NJ, OR and WA.

ID offers no protection for GLBT families or individuals, but last January, there have been some movements in the prior establishment of the Government of GLBT including anti-discrimination legislation, that it is The link points to EDGE.

Indeed, in 2006, was approved an article voters of the nation, most restrictive bans the family gay, lesbian recognition.

Medical expenses for the purposes of Ryan, could mean that the 9 / 11 so that the survivors to live without treatment.

The couple do not think the law. 365Gay.com Martinelli The article quotes the words: “I am always at the same company doing the same job. Why should I am not able to take my partner in Idaho, as I have in New Jersey? ”

David, a friend of Nicky, my beautiful laatlammetjie asked me to lunch the other day.

Given that we are placed in the restaurant of Melrose Arch, it kleinlaut smiled and said: “I expect you to know what it is.”

“No, no, not even,” I told myself that all innocence.

“Now, I ask you to Nicky’s hand in marriage.”

The young ladies Nicky has loved since his schooling eight years ago. I gave him my blessing quickly.

It is a kind of thin and erect Nicky has eyes for him. In addition, newly its last review captain, he has time. It is also great to 2 meters, weighs 120 kilograms and is playing for the first team Wits barrier - “kinda wide at the shoulder and narrow at the hip and not everyone knows you, not too big lip Dave!”

We look forward to every day, when David Nicky and do what our two daughters were older - walk down the red carpet on the lawn velvet our family in the country of origin Natal Drakensberg - and the solemn vows in the eyes of God and 150 friends and parents.

We are in the order of significance of the feather of pious men in the 17th century. The couple is drawn to the fact that marriage, “an honourable properties, which are not unberaten, mild or deliberate, men’s growing appetite carnal tastes and brutal, as animals do not understand, but impressive, discreet, intentionally, and the sobriety Fear of God “.

They undertake to consult each other, “and to keep to this day forward, for better for worse, for richer, for poorer, in the event of sickness and in health, to love and estimate till death do us part. “They still give their meagre wordly goods on the other.

Yes, and Nicky has faith in David’s bona fides, they have nothing against companies to “obey” her husband bribes. He is very happy with the idea that it is sympathetic to head home.

We, the witnesses during their parole. We expect that it is faithful to the end, for the marriage of any attempt, distress or argument. We expect it - even for their children. We expect that they love to opfernde until they are old and fragile.

The other two were married for 12 years and eight, and have lived up to their promises. They are now strong and happy families. It was (with exceptions sorry), and hundreds of years until recently. The great civilizations were built for the same deny that the concept of family.

With all this in the background, I picked up at random from the SA Law Reform Commission entitled “Report on Domestic Partnerships", 500 pages, the discussion paper on a new marriage, except with the permission of SA.

Y-, Off-N, E-Excused, NV non-voting

Election of the President of the United States of America

ASS 5628 creates an intergovernmental agreement on the election of the President of the United States. Currently, the chairman of the Central Election Commission of the college of electors in each state. Applicants must be between 270 and 538 votes to win elections, the presidency. SSB 5628, the promise of Washington’s 11 votes for the election of the winners of the national referendum, in contrast to the winners of Washington’s people. However, this measure would only be effective if enough countries in possession of a majority vote of the elections to the same extent. The intergovernmental agreement, the winner of the popular vote on the next president of the Electoral Commission effectively circumvent College. ASS 5628 passed by the Senate by a vote of 30 to 18 and is now before Parliament as a result of treatment.

Senator Bob Morton N

Senator Linda Evans Parlette N

Senator Janéa Holmquist N

National Campaign to the tolling system in politics

The house of E2SHB 1773 by a vote of 59 to 35, with the introduction of tolls federal state. The Washington Transportation Commission that the system of toll authority, it must be considered that the following guidelines for the introduction of electronic toll: a total of leadership, whether the use of tolls, the use of toll revenues , bringing the toll rates and the length of collecting tolls. The Commission must make a report to the legislature, an annual report on the implementation of these measures. The bill also authorizes the toll revenues to cover operating costs, payment of debts, intended for the transport of people and goods, and other improvements at the plant, where tolls charged. E2SHB 1773 is now before the Senate Transportation Committee.

Rep. Joel Kretz

N R-Wauconda

Rep. Bob Sump

N R-Republic

Rep. Mike Armstrong

N R-Wenatchee

Rep. Cary Condotta

N R-Wenatchee

Rep. Judy Warnick

N R-Moses Lake

Giving the tribal police authority

EHB 2476, Parliament adopted a vote of 58 to 37, the authorization of tribal police general of the authority of peace officers in Washington State. It would be a tribal law officers for the implementation of laws of the State of strain countries provided they are recognized by a tribe at the federal level and have insurance and the requirements of continuing education by the State . Courses notice or crime, are necessary to put on local jurisdictions, within three days for the local application. EHB 2476 is now before the Senate Judiciary Committee for further treatment.

AGENCY: Department of Homeland Security

OFFICE ADDRESS: Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard (USCG), Commanding Officer, USCG Aircraft Repair & Supply Center, HU25, HH65, H60J, C130, ESD, 130J EC support PIO or ALD, Elizabeth City, NC, 27909 – 5001, UNITED STATES

THEME: 16 - Helicopter Integrated Data Storage System (HIDS)

CLASSIFICATION CODE: 16 - Aircraft components and accessories

SOLICITATION NUMBER: HSCG38-08-R-200002

CONTACT: Tabitha Bakely, HH65 Contract Specialist, telephone 252-335-6141, fax 252-334-5240, e-mail Tabitha.L.Bakely @ uscg.mil - Claudette Surrento, HH65 Contract Specialist, tel 252-335 - 6644, Fax 252 -334-5240, e-mail@Claudette.Y.Surrento uscg.mil

NOTE TEXT: Department of Homeland Security United States Coast Guard (USCG) Commanding Officer, USCG Aircraft Repair & Supply Center, this is a combined synopsis / call concerning industrial property, in accordance with the format in FAR part 12 to 15 , supplemented by additional information in this publication. This announcement is only a call for proposals, and are invited to a written request will not be spent. Solicitation Number HSCG38-08-R-200002 is issued as a Request for Proposal (RFP). This request document and the arrangements and the terms are, in effect, by the Federal Acquisition bulletin 2005-23. The current rules North American Industry Classification Standard Code 336413rd Small businesses standard size of 1000 employees. It is an invitation without restriction. The U.S. Coast Guard Aircraft Repair & Supply Center (ARSC) is seeking proposals for a company at a fixed price for an indefinite period Delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) Helicopter Intergraded Data Storage Systems (HIDS), and care for a one-year term and a four - Option periods of the year. Parents appeal documents such as specifications, performance specifications, instructions to the Offerors, structure and elements of line, please visit the website at ARSC Contracting http://www.uscg.mil/ hq/arsc/contracting/HH65/HH-65. Htm # HH65_Solicitations Closing date and time for receipt of tenders is set for April 30, 2008, 3:00 EST. All responsible sources may submit an offer, then by the Agency. Award is the most anticipated for the 30 or May 2008. Contact Tabitha Bakely on Tabitha.L.Bakely @ uscg.mil or Claudette Surrento@uscg.mil Claudette.Y.Surento on matters pertaining to this call. The proposals are adopted at the following address: USCG HH-65 ARSC Bldg 78 Attn: Tabitha Bakely Elizabeth City, NC 27909 FAR The following provisions and clauses of this request and the availability of reference are: Clauses 52,252 -2 Incorporated by Reference (FEB 1998). The invitation contains one or more clauses by reference, with the same force and effect as if it was in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will present its full text at your disposal. The full text of the clause, Internet access to the email www.deskbook.Osd.Mil. 52212-1 instructions to Offerors Commercial Items (NOV 2007) 52212-2 Evaluation Commercial Items “(January 1999), the evaluation criteria are technology, experience, application delivery and performance of businesses in the past. Technical features is a little more important than experience. Experience Slightly larger than the demand for delivery. call delivery is a little more important than the performance of companies in the past. The price is not weighted, but before the award. Plus you are close to the technical proposal on equality, the price is even more important. suppliers 52.212-3 Representations and Certifications Commercial Items “(November 2007). ALT I (APR 2002) A bidder can be complete, paragraph (j) of this provision, when a service which has representations and the annual certification electronically at http://orca.bpn.gov If a bidder does not have the introductions and the annual certification electronically on the website of ORCA, the supplier would be complete paragraphs (b) (i) of this provision. 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions “Commercial Items” (DEC 2007) 52.212-5 Contract Terms and Conditions necessary for the implementation of statutes or Executive Orders “Commercial Items” (MAR 2007) 52203-6 restrictions on sales to subcontractors, the Government (Jul 1995). ALT I (September 2006) 52219 - 4 opinion on the evaluation Prive concerns HUBZone preference for Small Business (July 2005) 52219-8 Utilization of Small Business concerns (MAY 2004) 52219-9 plan Small Business Subcontracting (NOV 2007) Section II (OCT 2001) , 52219-16 Liquidiert damages Subcontracting Plan (JAN 1999), 52219-28 Post Small Business Award Program representation (JUNE 2007), 52222-19 Child Labor-Cooperation with the authorities and solutions bypass (January 2006) 52222-3 Convict Laboratory (JUNE 2003), 52222-19 Child Labor-Cooperation with the authorities and corrective action (AUG 2007) 52222-21 prohibition of Segregated Facilities (FEB 1999). 52222-26 Equal Opportunity (MAR 2007) 52222-35 equal opportunities for disabled people-veterans, veterans of the era of Vietnam, and other eligible veteran (SEP 2006) 52222-36 Affirmative Action for Workers with disabilities (JUNE 1998) 52222-37 employment, the reports on the special disabled veterans, veterans of the Vietnam era, and other eligible veteran (SEPTEMBER 2006), 52222-39 Notification of Employee Rights Whether the payment of fees or European Union Charges (DEC 2004), 52222-50 Combat Trafficking in Human Beings (AUG 2007) 52225 -1 Buy American Act-Supplies (JUNE 2003), 52225-13 some restrictions of foreign policy purchases (February 2006) 52232-33 payment by Electronic Funds Transfer Centre-contractors record (October 2003), 52222-41 Service Contract Act (November 2007) 52222 -42 Statement of Equivalent price of the Confederation Hires (MAY 1989), 52222-43 Fair Labor Standards Act and Services Contract prices Adjustment Act (Several years and Option Contracts) (NOV 2006) 52.209-4 approval of the first review article of eGovernment (SEP 1989 52.216-22 Indefinite quantity (OCT 1995) HSAR 3052.209-70 BAN ON CONTRACTS WITH CORPORATE EXPAT (JUNE 2006). (A) The prohibition. Section 835 of the Homeland Security Act, 6 USC 395, prohibits the Department of Homeland Security underwriting of a contract with another person who is treated as a national capital in the opposite meaning of this clause, or a subsidiary body of a Tel. Secretary waive the prohibition regarding a contract, if the Secretary-General notes that the waiver is in the interest of national security. Definitions (B). As stated in this clause: Expanded-Affiliated group is a group within the meaning of section 1504 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (regardless account of the Section 1504 (b) This Code), unless the article 1504 of this type of code is replaced by “more than 50%” at least 80% “means any ground, it seems to be the case. Business Entity Incorporated is any person who is or for the number (b) Chapter 835 of the Homeland Security Act, 6 USC 395, it will be like a foreign company, for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Inverted Domestic Corporation. A service from abroad is treated as a capital national Conversely, when, according to a plan (or series of transactions in the context) - (1) The establishment is the resumption of direct or indirect ” all the essential features of the Directly or indirectly, by a capital nationals or all the essential characteristics of a trade or activity Inländischen partnership, (2) Following the acquisition of at least 80 per cent of shares (by the vote or value) of the company, (i) in the case of a Resuming with the respect of a capital nationals by the former shareholders of domestic demand due to the group’s participation in the National Reserve Corporation , or (ii) in the case of an acquisition for a national partnership, the partners of the former domestic partnership because of the involvement of a capital or profits to the national interest and Partnership ( 3) The expansion of the group, following the acquisition, the company has no major activities in a foreign country where or under the law, the establishment of created or organized, if In comparison with the overall activities of a wider group. person, domestic and foreign, are important, as these terms contained in paragraphs (1), (4), (5) of section 7701 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Respectively. © Special provisions. definitions and rules apply to the question of whether an individual alien should be treated as a capital national umgedrehter. ( 1), some camps for non-compliance. For purposes of treatment of a person other than Umgedrehter a capital nationals who are not considered in determining liability account: (i) members of the group expanded, including the foreign entity, or (ii) the existence of such units, which is sold at a public offer in connection with the acquisition in subsection (b) (1) of section 835 of Homeland Security Act, 6 USC 395 (b) (1). (2) The plan, in some cases. If a foreign person to acquire, directly or indirectly, all the essential characteristics of a society or domestic partnership During the 4 years from the date of 2 years before the date of the liability requirements of Section (b) (2) are met, such actions are treated as after a plan. (3) Certain transfers of non-compliance. transfer of ownership or liabilities (including participation or distribution) are neglected, if such transfers are part of a plan main objective is to prevent the purposes of this section. (D) A rule for Parents partnerships. Aux for the application of Article 835 (b) of the Homeland Security Act, 6 USC 395 (b) for the acquisition of a national partnership, provided that the present rules, all national partners, under joint control ( in the sense of Section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), shall be considered as a partnership. (E) treatment of certain rights. (1), certain rights are treated as actions to the extent necessary to ensure a fair present value of the interests of all incidents of the transaction follows: (i) are guaranteed, (ii) options, (iii) contracts for the acquisition of stock, (iv) instruments convertible bonds, and (v) d Other similar interests. (2) the rights of the denomination of stocks is not treated, As stocks, whenever it deems necessary to be done to update the value of the transaction or the failure to comply Transactions including recognition of the defeat, with the aim of Article 835 (F), advertising. Bidders under this call for proposals is that [please check]: 0 This is not a foreign person , are treated should be considered as a capital umgedrehter national accordance with the criteria (HSAR) 48 CFR 3009.104-70 by 3009.104-73, 0 This is a foreign person, which should be treated as a domestic Umgedrehter Society capital, in accordance with the criteria (HSAR) 48 CFR 3009.104-70 by 3009.104-73, but she filed an application for exemption under 3009 .104-74, was not disputed, or 0, it is d a foreign person, should be treated as a capital national umgedrehter according to criteria (HSAR) 48 CFR 3009.104-70 by 3009.104-73, but he intends to file a request for waiver in accordance with the 3009 .104-74 . (G) A copy of the waiver approved if a waiver was Granted to the waiver request or if an exemption has been requested to bid or proposal. (At the end of the provision) NOTE TO FILING THE AGENCY’S PROTEST. It is the policy of the Coast Guard and answers about procurement in a fair and the weather in an equitable manner. Ombudsman Agency program protests (OPAP), has been charged to investigate matters of agency protest and resolve, without cumbersome and costly trial. OPAP is an independent audit of the authority which is entitled to the issuance of a prevailing plaintiff basically the same as Telles ‘granting discharge General Accounting Office (GAO). Interested parties are invited to try to resolve their problems within the Coast Guard as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), the forum, rather than filing a protest by GAO forums or some external stakeholders can search concerns informal resolution or opt-file formal protest to an agency with the payer officer or mediator. Forum informally with the mediator. Interested parties who believe that the Coast Guard is unfair d Purchasing or otherwise broken firstly their concerns directly to the sender aware of the officer. Contracting If the officer is unable to respond to the concerns of the interested party is invited to become familiar with the mediator Coast Guard Agency for protests. Informal part of this process, the Agency is not necessary to the suspension of procurement. Relying on an informal forum to suspend at any time, not a condition for filing a protest of the agency or with another forum. order to ensure a timely response, interested parties should provide the following information to the Ombudsman Solicitation / Sequence number, Contracting Office, Contracting Officer, and call Closing Date ( if applicable). Agency formal protest with the mediator. Before filing a formal protest Agency, firstly, the demonstrators using their best forces to resolve their concerns with the “contracting officer” by open and frank discussions. If the demonstrators, the concerns are pending an independent audit is in place, the Ombudsman. Expressing This can be a formal protest of the agency contracting officer or as an alternative to what the mediator in the framework of OPAP. Procedure award contract or performance, for the period of protest, unless the awarding of the contract or the service is justified, in writing, of the imperative and urgent, or by writing to the east in the best interest of the government. The agency has set a target of protests in less than 35 calendar days after the date of registration. Protests includes information presented in the document FAR 33,103 (d) (2). If the complainant n has failed to provide any information necessary for the resolution of protest may be delayed or dismissed protests in May. Nevertheless filling the protest Satisfying the demand. For Meanwhile, protests Should within FAR 33,103 (e). Objection formally introduced under the programme should OPAP to the following address: Commander (CG-851) 2100 2nd Street, NW, Room 2606 Washington, DC 20593 Telephone: 202-267-2285 Fax: 202 -267-4011

INTERNET ADDRESS: Made available by http://www.fbo.gov/spg/DHS/USCG/USCGARSC/HSCG38-08-R-200002/listing.html Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc. (FIND) 202-429 – 5944

John Nogawski the reins of the CBS Television Distribution.

Nogawski, who recently shared the Division’s President and COO title with Robert Madden, fulfils the role of Roger King, syndication pioneer, died Dec. 8.

Madden, is now on the position of the new Senior Executive vp. He particularly responsible for overseeing the company’s programming partnerships with Sony Pictures Television for “Wheel of Fortune” and “Jeopardy!” And with Harpo Prods. For “The Oprah Winfrey Show.” It is now Nogawski report.

Terry Wood, the chairman of the creative community, from the business and development of a new agreement, as a short time ago, as is the case, it remains in its function of the division, as President Joe DiSalvo of Sales. The two directors are always to the reporting Nogawski.

In his new role as chairman is to oversee Nogawski creator, business and management operations for CBS Corp. ‘national syndication of the company. The Executive Committee, said King CEO of the division, now reports CBS Corp. President and CEO Leslie Moonves.

“John has a resumption of the success in all areas of syndication - first race and off-network programming, as well as distribution and the media,” said Moonves. “He played a central role in the promotion of a path to programming syndication for our owners and increasingly to innovate, create opportunities for revenue through our program of the library of integrated marketing efforts in the digital world. ”

Nogawski and Madden’s President and COO contributions, in September 2006, when the king of the World Prods. In collaboration with CBS Paramount Domestic TV CTD. The new structure of the national television found Nogawski Syndication run all departments sales and distribution and marketing advertisers, research and new media, while Madden won surveillance operations management, finance, right, communication and CBS Consumer Products.

In his new role, is to monitor Nogawski a slate of eight of the top 10 rated syndicated shows. Among the shows distributed CTD are the first-run “Wheel,” “Jeopardy!” “Oprah,” “Entertainment Tonight,” “Judge Judy” and “Dr. Phil” and “off-net series such as” Everybody Loves Raymond “and” CSI “franchise. The Division participates in the opening of another spokesman for the time of day, “doctors” in this case.

Nogawski said no initiatives is also a high priority for the future.

“Other platforms are so important in the future,” he said. “I just want a spend a lot of time getting to know really, and meetings with the leaders of the (sub-) industry partner and with the right people to ensure a successful future.”

At CTD, Nogawski is credited with the creation of revenue, platforms corporate programming. He also integrated a unit sale, as advertising for brands of the first run productions; false digital initiatives of the first and run-off, the network indicates that resulted in partnerships with Yahoo, MSN and Procter & Gamble, and In proceeded to the subdivision of programming online - Web site of the distribution based on the talent competition “Big Shot Live", a partnership with “ET” in Germany affiliated sites.

Before the reorganization, which was founded in 2006, CTD, Nogawski, a long CBS / Paramount executive, the president of CBS Paramount Domestic Television. In this capacity, which it has already, since March 2002, it is for all distribution activities and services of the advertiser Paramount.

Pending Moonves Madden called “one of the highest of good over the forces of the economy in relations with enormous in our industry.” Madden has been a long King World Executive before a central role in society, the merger with CBS as executive vp in January 2000. After the merger, it has a similar letter to CBS Enterprises, at the front of COO in January 2004.

Question: What do you have in your absence during Football mainstream?

Answer: During my sabbatical year, I was back with associations like Highlanders, and other clubs in the first division on issues such as event management, the constitution and the status of players. I have a passion for the game, it was during this period that I discovered is that the needs of Zifa have intensified support programs to associations, especially in the lower divisions and Line-Cours.

During that period I also participated in a course of Fifa in Zurich, Switzerland, and in March, we were the first group with the new Fifa Central. . . It was for regional instructors, Chris Mbanga and visits me.

I have, since, and held in Bulawayo way for the allocation of man with the potential management and group dynamics.

I also managed to become familiar with the structures of the lowest in our industry, and contributed to some of its own clubs appreciate Fifa, Caf and Zifa statutes, the company because in some clubs players have not Only football, but they have work contracts.

This interaction has shown that it is necessary to work harder to build capacity. It was time to betrübend to note that former players are in a situation of extreme poverty, and this reinforces my solution, and try to revitalize the Footballers’ Union of the Republic of Zimbabwe, as well as former footballers ago helped to live a better life.

We really Fifpro and parts of our country and our partners in South Africa and Egypt, and I did in the structures, Shepherd Chiware (Advisor sport) and Desmond Maringwa had begun.

I also emphasized the fact that there are more people dedicated to the outside, support for lower division clubs, whose passion for football should be completed by Zifa and the business community.

Q: But how he feels right now, as the development and training of directors?

A: I just feel that I was part of the family of football and football, that beyond 2010.

I believe we owe our tour, from 2007 to 2010 with more vehemence, and I am sure, with my knowledge and experience, we can spearhead of the growth and development of the national team.

It is a pity that we can not squander two years finger-pointing, but I think I have to act like an eagle flies so high, and do a search on key targets, and I will not be part of the insignificant, that wars Marquent football.

Q: So you regret or bitterness during the period that you have been on the side of the line?

A: No, bitterness.

The only regret is that we allowed the time and energy to focus on quiz at the expense of the party. We must be able to stand up and dust, then down to serious business after the mark of man is not to stay on the cutting edge, but rising again from its ashes and strong.

Our game has been a victim of hatred of the policy of the proximity of several decades, and my approach is that human beings should be a game of chance to flourish because we are a giant of football, which is placed Waiting.

In an odd nomenclature shuffle, UT lawmakers move to ban domestic partnerships, but also officials from Salt Lake City Side-Stepping limitation of the new change of name by the National Registry of their association with the word “mutual commitment” .

The Deseret Morning News reported March 26 in a story www.deseretnews.com/article/1, 5143,695264778,00. Html, the government that the bill prohibiting the use of national registries partnership result of a bill by Republican Senator Chris Buttars state, the controversy generated when he criticizes as part of another bill say school it is like a Afro - American children and called it “a dark, horrible thing.”

Cost Buttars remark that some political capital. However, a Republican colleague, Greg Bill, and to strengthen a revised version of the measure to win, went to its approval by the Senate and the State House.

“Domestic partnership” is a concept widely used in local government, employers and insurance to nominate two persons, whose life in such a way to make their business as interdependent. In general, the term is reserved for same-sex couples, who live together in a stable relationship.

Less often, the term can take two people in connection with the blood (or a parent and child), or in a non-sexual, but a way of life in the long term. Often, the status of national production partnership opens the door to the expansion of the health of an employee reporting and other benefits for the person, as domestic workers partners.

Since 2005, Salt Lake City has a domestic political partnership registry allows people to the city a right of access, to extend the perks of a national partnership - until now. With the government move to ban domestic partnerships, the city government is now trying, a fund dedicated to the life partners, in view of one of the mechanisms for the protection of employees on the ability to expand, of Health, a report on life partners.

Since the Utah Constitution has been amended by voters in the year 2004 to prohibit the promotion of equality of marriage and the recognition of “substantially equivalent” agreement between two persons of the same sex, state legislators have argued that domestic partnerships are a violation of state law.

Last week on this page (NCR, Nov. 7), we completed the Bishop Daniel P. Reilly Worchester, Massachusetts, “because of the issue of gay benefits.” In his testimony on October 23 on the same-sex civil marriage and the Association of bills, “before the legislature, the Board of judiciary, Reilly said: “Some say it is unfair for married couples only offer certain socio - economic benefits. This is another question about the importance of marriage.”

Reilly continued: “Civil Unions Bill to the committee confuses the two issues, changing the meaning of spouse, in order to allow access to all the services of same-sex partners from civil marriage Union. This changes the institution of marriage, with enlargement, Represents esteem, of the law on spouses. Let’s not mix the two issues. We have the issue of the distribution of justice on its own terms. If a law changing the definition of marriage or changes in the meaning of spouse, we can not support. If the goal is a view of the various departments and determine who should be eligible spouses, we will be us for the discussion. ”

Reilly was not quite as fine distinction. A discussion on how the economic benefits of enlargement in the traditional marriage (health insurance, for example), while others (especially because, as part of the testimony, homosexual couples) would be something that would support the ‘Church.

A positive step forward, we thought. Of course, the Church to continue the fight against civil marriage for gay couples, or any other law, sanctioned the scheme (eg, “civil unions"), similar to traditional marriage, but there would be a discussion on promotion of economic and social justice.

But now that the response to Reilly’s comments.

In a press release on October 28 ( “Do not Believe the Headlines"), the Massachusetts Catholic Conference said that “the management of bills of same-sex partnership has not been in Switzerland in front of the episcopal commission Reilly, and no connection with them, in his testimony, or comments after the press. ”

This distinction is also true that, as it is irrelevant. The Massachusetts legislature is considering legislation focuses on the gay couples on a number of fronts, “civil unions", “gay marriage” and “Same-sex partnerships in Switzerland” of them. There are differences in relation to each of these approaches, and it was clear that the bishop of the fact that the Massachusetts church leaders from all three. The Reilly said in his testimony prepared (it was not an “off-the-cuff comment), has interpreted the Church is willing to discuss an acceptable means, in short civil marriage or its equivalent rude,” an end (economic justice) Many on each side of gay marriage.

Another article in the Boston archdiocesan paper, the pilot, said that Reilly’s remarks were “False [the] press release.” On October 30 a letter to the editor of major newspapers Massachusetts, Reilly emphasized the difference between individual rights and socio-economic benefits, which individual rights “and” claims of the rights of research on couples Same-sex because of their homosexual relationship. ”

Maybe the shade is Reilly’s first witness, combined with the emotions around the theme lent itself sometimes exaggerated headlines.

However, the traceability of the church was less artistically Massachusetts and unnecessarily defensive.

We continue to believe that, given the context of the paper version testimony, Reilly gave the title of his testimony, “Woman’s Right to Know, Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Union Bill,” and he withdrew the differences, Pull it is reasonable, it was trying to find a way to learn about the issue of benefits, without going into the question of the change in the meaning of marriage.

And we still believe that rational discourse on a controversial area of public policy, which is not far away and that the major benefits of these two reasons, and reasoned discussion.

Oct. 10 - Vote for Amendment 43? Indeed, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. And married couples may arise, and be held responsible for debt reduction, including the right to benefits, medical decisions and end of the relationship with the ownership of the means of production, for example.

Vote for referendum I. Why? Because of a national production, a partnership is a relationship between same-sex couple. And together national partners and to be held responsible for debt reduction, including the right to benefits, medical decisions and end of the relationship with the ownership of the means of production, for example. Confused? I referendum is the marriage under another name, Bishop Philip Porter of Promise Keepers. “If you vote yes to 43, where we have confidence in the fact that human beings, we believe they should not be a referendum, I vote on what it himself.”

Rev. Steve Brown of Greeley agreement. I referendum, it is the same rights. “This is not about marriage. It is human rights for man, a man who, I believe, in the image of God.” Whatever say supporters on both sides, the voters have the last word on polls in the coming months. And, technically, the two can co-exist in the law changes. * Amendment 43 amends the Colorado Constitution to define marriage between a man and a woman. One argument in favor of passage that, in Massachusetts, a legal definition has not been enough to prevent the courts of the State to recognize same-sex marriages. * I created a new referendum of the legal partnership relationship to the national same-sex couples, offers the possibility of legal provisions and responsibilities of married couples given Colorado. It means that the partnership is not marriage, and therefore does not change the public policy of the country in which the marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In favour of the amendment 43, Porter said: “It is morally just. We were struck by a Creator God the Creator and that marriage between a man and a woman, a man and a woman. Who are we against the mandates are paid by us Created in the wake of the referendum I, Brown said: “There are fundamental rights for the brothers and sisters who are not on them yet … Visit hospital rights, the rights of burial, insurance-parity. To defeat this amendment, it is, discrimination and not to show compassion. ”

DENVER, Sept. 19 (UPI) – A new poll finds that slim majorities of Colorado voters favor legal rights for same-sex couples and oppose gay marriage.

The survey was conducted by the Rocky Mountain News and CBS 4.

Voters get a chance to decide both in November. Referendum I would allow homosexual couples to register as domestic partners, while Amendment 43 bans gay marriage.

The poll found that 58 percent of registered voters support Referendum I, while 52 percent plan to vote for the amendment, which would put a definition of marriage in the state constitution. Generally, those who support one oppose the other, but 20 percent support both.

“The framers of Ref I were very careful and specific,” pollster Lori Weigel told the Rocky Mountain News.

She said they were careful to reassure voters that domestic partnerships would not be marriages.

Jul. 9–John Stolz and John White will celebrate their 30th anniversary together in October.

But the couple from Colts Neck will have a new anniversary in the eyes of New Jersey when they declare their relationship to the state tomorrow.

That’s when a new law goes into effect allowing same-sex couples over the age of 18 and heterosexual couples over the age of 62 to register as domestic partners.

Such couples will be granted inheritance and hospital visitation rights, and gay partners will be eligible for health insurance.

“To me, this is really a wonderful thing that New Jersey is doing as far as civil rights is concerned,” said Stolz, 53.

To mark the occasion, a handful of municipal clerk’s offices statewide – including Asbury Park – will be open tomorrow.

Neptune couple Fran Goldberg, 55, and Harriet Leyden, 62, are planning to register tomorrow morning in Maplewood, Essex County, which is having a huge ceremony and celebration. Neighboring South Orange is scheduled to open at midnight for couples to file.

New Jersey is the fifth state to have such a registry. Gov. McGreevey signed the Domestic Partnership Act in January despite the protests of the New Jersey Catholic Conference and conservative League of American Families.

Critics said the bill treats unmarried heterosexual couples unfairly based on age. The law offers rights only to seniors, who in some cases would have their pension and/or Social Security benefits reduced if they opted for marriage.

The New Jersey branch of AARP, the senior advocacy group, did not take a position on the law and has not received much feedback from its 1.3 million members, according to associate state director Steve Ma.

“We don’t know how it will affect our population,” Ma said.

Its effect on the gay community is also unclear at this point.

As of 2002 there were same-sex couples living together in every county in New Jersey and in 548 of the state’s 566 municipalities, according to the gay rights group Lambda Legal. But not all of them are embracing the new law.

Joe D’Andrea of Asbury Park called it “a good first step” in the fight for equality but said he and his partner, Will Elliott, will not be registering.

“I’m disappointed that the current law only affords couples 10 out of the more than 1,000 benefits of marriage that the federal government has identified,” said D’Andrea, 50.

He also bristles at the fact that domestic partners must provide proof of joint financial responsibility – like a statement from a joint bank account – when such documents aren’t required for a marriage license.

More : accessmylibrary.com

Mar. 28–DENVER - Same-sex partners would be able to get some of the same rights as married couples under a proposed referendum approved by the House on Monday. A bill that would ask voters to create domestic partnerships, which would permit gays and lesbians to inherit each other’s property, operate under the same state tax laws and adopt children just like married couples. The proposal, which now heads off to the Senate, also would require the the gay and lesbian couples to obtain licenses to certify their partnership similar those who get married. “These are not just gay people we’re talking about here, they’re gay Coloradans,” said Rep. Tom Plant, D-Nederland, who introduced HB1344. “They deserve equal treatment.” Democrats said the measure doesn’t allow same-sex couples to get married, but Republicans said it amounts to the same thing. As a result, domestic partnerships not only erode marriages, but Colorado as a whole, the GOP lawmakers said. “This is a significant social change for Colorado, to the concept of marriage,” said Rep. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud. “This is a dark day in Colorado.” Rep. Angie Paccione, D-Fort Collins, said that people said the same thing decades ago about allowing interracial marriages. The nation didn’t fall then and it certainly won’t now, she said. The measure passed virtually along party lines, 38-27, but with three Republicans joining the Democratic majority: Reps. Mark Larson of Cortez, Al White of Winter Park and Bob McCluskey of Fort Collins. “This is not an issue of equity, this is an issue of equitable treatment,” Larson said. “This has nothing to do with morals or religion. The state cannot give benefits to some people while denying it to others. That is quite simply, wrong.” Southern Colorado’s delegation voted with their parties, but it’s too early to say if that will happen when the Senate votes on the measure. While Sen. Abel Tapia, D-Pueblo, said he’s a definite “yes” on the measure and Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, is an emphatic “no,” Republican Sens. Ken Kester of Las Animas and Lewis Entz of Hooper say they haven’t made up their minds. “I might take a real close look at this,” Kester said. “I’m not so sure it’s that bad.”

May 4–DENVER - A proposed referendum that would create domestic partnerships for same-sex couples cleared another major hurdle Wednesday. The Colorado Senate gave its initial approval to a measure that would grant same-sex couples some of the same rights now afforded to married couples, but without it actually being a marriage. But even if the Legislature ultimately gives its final approval to HB1344, it still would face the scrutiny of Colorado voters in November. “In my opinion, this is a fairness and equality issue,” said Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, D-Golden, who introduced the measure with Rep. Tom Plant, D-Nederland. “It’s giving same-sex couples a unique and special status in the state of Colorado to allow them to enjoy some of the benefits that those of us who are married get to enjoy. Those things are responsibilities as well as benefits.” Fitz-Gerald called the idea “a small step toward equality,” saying it’s all a matter of equal rights. Still, she said it’s not a marriage, in part, because the union would not be recognized outside of the state, or even by the federal government.

The bill does not allow same-sex couples to file taxes as if they were married, and it also doesn’t require any private organization such as churches to recognize them. A legislative analysis of the measure predicts that about 1,500 couples statewide will apply for a domestic partnership license in its first year, and another 3,500 by the second year it is in effect. While the Colorado Domestic Partnership Benefits and Responsibilities Act doesn’t create a new class of marriage, per se, it does allow same-sex couples to do such things they currently are denied, such as inherit each other’s property, visit each other in emergency rooms and adopt children as a couple.

But it’s just those benefits that Republican opponents to the measure don’t like. Sen. Jim Dyer, R-Centennial, said the idea is too close to actually being a marriage, and is bad public policy. “It it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck,” Dyer said. “This is a same-sex marriage bill. You’ve got to get a license for it, you’ve got to go through a divorce. All of the things in here, all of the elements that go into this bill create all of the obligations of a marriage, all of the responsibilities of marriage. We just ought to simply say so. “A lot of us don’t think this is a matter of justice or injustice,” he added. “We’re simply not willing to say the union of people of the same sex is a marriage.” The bill still requires a final vote in the Senate, which could come as early as today. The House approved it in late March.

ROSE WILSON wouldn’t exactly call herself a political activist. The 49-year-old Ohio mother of two had always voted on Election Day. But this year she wanted to do more.

In the months leading up to the election, the highest court in Massachusetts had legalized civil marriage between homosexuals. Lawsuits seeking the same outcome were spreading across the country. Wilson, who works part-time in a gift-basket shop in northwest Dayton, feared her state was next.

Wilson circulated a petition, gathering signatures to get what would become known in Ohio as Issue One–a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships–on the November 2 ballot. A close friend, Renee Abney, launched the local petition initiative “by the leading of the Spirit” after receiving a mass mailing from James Dobson of Focus on the Family (see interview on p. 60).

“I’m very passionate about God’s plan for the family,” Abney, 42, says. The push for marriage between homosexuals, she says, is not just about “some people wanting more rights. It’s about the Enemy trying to alter God’s plan.” Neither Wilson nor Abney had previously been active in politics. But both women, who are African American, do not consider themselves aligned with the Republican Party.

In just three weeks, the volunteers Abney recruited gathered roughly 1,500 petition signatures. They had become part of a grassroots revolution spreading across the state. By the deadline for submission of the petition last July, various groups statewide had collected more than 557,000 signatures. An energized grassroots network had formed–setting up the 62 percent to 38 percent vote in favor of the new state constitutional ban.

Ten other states–Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, and Oregon–passed similar prohibitions. But the amendments may become the next casualties in an expanding national struggle.

“We fully expect a tsunami of litigation,” says Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage. AFM is a nonpartisan coalition seeking to amend the U.S. Constitution to prevent the redefinition of marriage. Daniels fears that state and federal judges will invalidate the measures.

Except for some continuing efforts to educate church members, the battle has now substantially moved from the ballot box to the courtroom.

STRATEGIC PATCHWORK

Roughly 40 states now have legislation aimed at preserving the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. These initiatives, dubbed Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA), take three forms: nonbinding resolutions, marriage statutes, and constitutional amendments.

In the wake of the November election, 17 states have adopted constitutional amendments. The strongest of the three legislative tacks, they ban marriage between homosexuals. Several other states are considering amendments.

But liberal civil-rights groups are seeking to overturn existing DOMA legislation in both state and federal courts. In October, a district judge struck down the Louisiana marriage amendment, which garnered 78 percent of the votes a month earlier. The judge said it violated the state’s rule that constitutional amendments deal only with one subject. On November 3, one day after the Oklahoma marriage referendum passed, two homosexual couples sued to overturn the measure. A week later, activists filed suit in Georgia.

“The way we do this is through a period of what I call patchwork,” Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a homosexual activist group in New York, told reporters two days after the election.

Lambda Legal, a pro-gay litigation and public-policy group, said the lawsuits are chosen “strategically.” The aim is to secure “precedents that can later be used to challenge similar amendments and laws.”

Lambda Legal, which filed a joint lawsuit with the ACLU to overturn the Georgia state marriage amendment, is also heading attacks on DOMA and related laws in Nebraska, Washington state, California, New York, and New Jersey. Other pro-gay legal groups–such as Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the organization that led the charge for legalization of marriage between homosexuals in Massachusetts–are spearheading lawsuits in other states. But attorneys for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), who fought successfully to keep many of the state amendments on the ballot, will be intervening in California, Georgia, and Oklahoma.

There are eight lawsuits in federal courts. Three of these cases are in Florida. The others are in Minnesota, Washington state, California, Oklahoma, and Nebraska.

“Sooner or later, one of these is going to land in front of a judge who thinks he has the duty to help homosexuals obtain rights they [think they] should have,” said Glen Law, senior vice president of the marriage litigation center for ADF. This may set the stage for a battle in the U.S. Supreme Court.

More : accessmylibrary.com

Fair Wisconsin recently unveiled a television ad claiming medical rights will be threatened if the proposed civil unions ban passes in the Nov. 7 election, drawing heated debate as to just how far the effects of the amendment will reach.

In the emotional advertisement, a lesbian named Lynn described the obstacles she faced when her partner was diagnosed with cancer. According to Lynn, it was “unclear” if she would be able to make critical medical decisions and ensure long-term financial stability for their adopted daughter. The advertisement claims the proposal “could” deny medical decisions and hospital visits to domestic partnerships.

“Things like hospital visits and medical decisions fall under a wide category of things that would be threatened by this amendment,” said Rachel Strauch-Nelson, spokeswoman for Fair Wisconsin, the lead opposition group to the ban. According to Strauch-Nelson, non-married heterosexual couple’s rights are equally threatened.

Amendment supporters say the only issue that should be at hand is gay marriage. The law, according to Mike Prentiss, a spokesman for state Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, does not make same-sex health decisions illegal.

“Allegations from Fair Wisconsin that the constitutional amendment would outlaw domestic partnerships [are] 100 percent false,” Prentiss said.

However University of Wisconsin at Madison professor of family medicine Byron Crouse said there is merit in the information the advertisement presents.

“Traditionally, a legal family member makes the medical decision, and that’s one of the issues here,” he said. “What is the status of a same-sex partner?” Advocates of the ban insist that medical decisions will not be affected by the proposal.

“There is nothing explicitly prohibited in the proposed constitutional amendment,” Prentiss said.

The second sentence of the amendment, prohibiting “anything substantially similar to marriage,” is where Fair Wisconsin draws the inspiration for the argument of the advertisement.

“This amendment would provide a legal basis to challenge a whole litany of legal protections for unmarried couples,” Strauch-Nelson said.

If an unmarried person acknowledges their partnership in a living will and gives their partner power of attorney, legally the amendment should not infringe on this authority. However, Crouse said that many people might not anticipate “catastrophic events,” like a sudden chronic disease diagnosis.

According to Prentiss, the ban will not prohibit future laws granting certain rights to same-sex partners.

“There is nothing in the proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit a future legislature from introducing and passing legislation to grant some of the rights and privileges that are currently granted to married couples,” he said.

Late in November, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected without comment a challenge to the Massachusetts ruling that legalized same sex marriage. At least 3,000 same sex couples have legally wed in Massachusetts since May 2004.

State legislatures are struggling with this issue. During the last session, many legislators introduced legislation to define marriage, restrict recognition of marriages performed in other jurisdictions, or prohibit civil unions and domestic partnerships. Others introduced legislation to permit same sex couples to marry, establish domestic partnerships and civil unions, and to recognize same sex marriages performed legally in other jurisdictions.

In what is widely perceived as a backlash to the situation in Massachusetts, voters approved constitutional amendments in 13 states last fall, bringing to 17 the number of states with constitutional provisions defining marriage as only between a man and a woman, or explicitly allowing the legislature to do so. Legislators in at least 16 states introduced bills calling for a constitutional amendment. In seven of those, the legislatures passed the amendments and the voters approved them. In six other states, citizens took matters into their own hands, putting citizen initiatives on the ballot, where voters overwhelmingly approved them.

Constitutional amendments are still pending in several states, including Massachusetts, where procedure requires an amendment to be considered and passed by both legislative chambers in two consecutive legislative sessions before being presented to the voters for final approval.

Legislation calling for a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage has already been introduced in South Carolina and Virginia. A bill that would establish gender-neutral marriage has been introduced in California.

The topic has also attracted international attention. The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that the government may legalize same sex marriage, but stopped short of saying that the current definition of marriage is unconstitutional. Laws permitting same sex marriage or giving partners the same or similar benefits as those in heterosexual unions already exist in Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Sweden. In December, New Zealand’s Parliament passed a civil union bill giving same sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples. South Africa and Spain have taken recent action to expand gay rights to marriage and adoption.

In addition to Wisconsin, three other states _ Arizona, Colorado and Virginia _ are viewed by gay-rights strategists as having closely-contested campaigns this fall over proposed constitutional amendments that would ban gay marriage and civil unions. A brief look at the campaigns:

_ARIZONA: If this election is close, it will be because of a section of the proposed amendment which would bar local governments and state-run schools from recognizing any relationship similar to marriage, such as civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, among others, has criticized the measure, saying a ban on domestic partnerships could hurt the city’s ability to recruit skilled employees.

Bruce Merrill, a pollster and political scientist at Arizona State University, says roughly two-thirds of Arizonans favor limiting marriage to one man, one woman, while an almost equally large majority support domestic partnerships.

He suggested some Arizonans oppose the amendment simply because they view it as government intrusion into private matters.

“If there’s a frontier mentality left, it’s in Mountain States,” he said. “There’s an attitude of, ‘Leave us alone.’”

_COLORADO: This campaign is unprecedented because, in addition to the ban-gay-marriage ban, there is a separate measure put on the ballot by gay-rights supporters that would establish the legality of domestic partnerships providing same-sex couples with many of the rights of married couples.

Both measures could be approved, both could lose, or one could prevail but not the other.

The showdown has drawn some large contributions _ $500,000 (A395,000) for the marriage ban from the political arm of the Colorado Springs-based Christian ministry Focus on the Family, and an even larger sum for the domestic-partnership measure from a foundation overseen by software millionaire Tim Gill, a major backer of gay-rights causes.

_VIRGINIA: Recent polls show Virginia’s ban likely to win approval, but opponents have mounted a strong campaign, raising more than twice as much money through August as the ban supporters.

Opponents of the measure include Democratic Gov. Timothy Kaine, who says some of its provisions might impede legislators if they wanted to extend legal recognition to unmarried couples in the future.

Dave Fleischer, a political organizer for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, commended the activists running anti-amendment campaigns in all these states, but said they remain underdogs.

“Whether we have a chance or not, once it’s on the ballot, we don’t have a choice but to give it everything we’ve got,” he said. “If we don’t fight these, the message we send is that we’re a safe group for fundamentalists and right-wing bigots to attack _ it’s like wearing a sign that says, ‘Kick me.’”

Oct. 2–DENVER - At the same time that voters will decide whether to create domestic partnerships for gays and lesbians, they will consider declaring in the Colorado Constitution that marriage is between a man and a woman. While Amendment 43 is designed to ensure a long-lasting definition of what marriage is, Referendum I would grant marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples. And while, on a legal standpoint, the two measures would not cancel each other out should voters approve them, the same groups that are supporting one are opposing the other.

“Words have meaning,” said Jeff Crank, the failed congressional candidate from Colorado Springs who is supporting the marriage amendment and opposing domestic partnerships. “A Ford is a Ford. A Chevy is a Chevy. A Chevy’s not a Ford. Marriage is, plain and simply, a union between a man and a woman.” Crank said that while Colorado statutes already define marriage, he and other supporters want that law in the Constitution because “it’s only a matter of time until an activist judge” broadens that definition to include same-sex unions. So much the better, say supporters of domestic partnerships. Referendum I not only is an acknowledgement that the definition of a couple has changed over time, but an attempt to offer those unions equal protection under the law that traditional marriages afford heterosexual couples, such as hospital visitation and inheritance rights, said Sean Duffy, director of Coloradans for Fairness. “We have decided as a society that gay people are not going to be married, yet we do need to talk about how do we need to provide a common-sense way to provide basic legal rights (to gays),” Duffy said. “The issue is, should we as a society be in a place where it is more likely that a gay person dies without a will, and that their property will go to the government rather than to their life partners. Or should we fix the rules, and allow that problem to be solved and provide basic legal rights for committed same-sex partners?” Under Referendum I, same-sex couples would be allowed to registered as domestic partners much in the same way that married couples do. Under that legal partnership, though, the rights such couples would get would be limited to jointly hold property with inheritance rights, jointly incur and be liable for debt, be able to cover a partner under life insurance and health care policies, be eligible for family leave benefits, have hospital visitation rights and have the power to dispose of a partner’s last remains. Carrie Gordon Earll of the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, said that constitutes marriage, and as such should not be allowed. Earll said Colorado law already allows unmarried people to do all of those things. “This sets up a legal equivalent of marriage,” Earll said. “This is a major overhaul, this isn’t just a minor tweak. Every time I read (the referendum) I find something I’m surprised by.” Rev. Phil Campbell, director of ministry studies at the University of Denver’s Iliff School of Theology and an opponent of the marriage amendment, said the entire debate against same-sex marriages is sparked by a difference between those who have acknowledged that homosexuality exists in society and those who won’t. “We know as a people that this kind of discriminatory language does not belong in constitutional doctrine,” Campbell said. “The genius of our country really rests in our Bill of Rights, and the understanding that constitutions are used to extend rights, not to deny them. There are different understandings of marriage, and there is no compelling state interest to involve itself, particularly at the constitutional level, in this dispute.”

A new appeal of a 2003 court action could affect the University of Michigan’s ability to offer benefits to same-sex couples.

The Thomas More Law Center is appealing a court decision that dismissed a lawsuit that tried to stop the Ann Arbor (Mich.) Public Schools from offering benefits to same-sex couples. The center is now asking the court to consider the passage of Proposal 2 in its ruling.

Proposal 2, passed in November 2004, amended the state constitution to state that marriage between a man and a woman “shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.” Patrick Gillen, a lawyer with the Ann Arbor-based Christian law firm, said he hopes that if the court rules against the school district, the decision will set a precedent for cases involving other institutions that offer same-sex benefits – including the University of Michigan.

“I hope the court of appeals considers the issue in this case and that we will receive the quickest and most efficient resolution to that question,” Gillen said. “That decision would bind every subdivision of the state of Michigan.” University Law Professor Samuel Gross said a decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals would probably affect other institutions.

“A decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals would probably be considered binding on everyone in Michigan and a decision by the Michigan Supreme Court certainly would be,” Gross said.

The original suit was filed in 2003 but was dismissed by the Washtenaw County Circuit Court on a procedural technicality.

The idea for the lawsuit originated when some Ann Arbor residents came to the Thomas More Law Center and complained that their tax dollars were being used to provide benefits for school employees in same-sex unions.

Gillen said the appeal contends that the Ann Arbor Public Schools are illegally recognizing same-sex marriages, only calling them by a different name – domestic partnerships.

“I am looking for a decision (from the court) which would hold that the recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships for the purpose of providing benefits is contrary to Proposal 2,” Gillen said.

He said the lawsuit is meant to bring the Ann Arbor schools into line with the beliefs of the majority of the people in Michigan.

“People of the state of Michigan have a unique interest in protecting the institution of marriage as it is traditionally understood,” Gillen said. “That institution should not be undermined by providing recognition to other relationships which are not of equal dignity and not equal to marriage.” Liz Margolis, director of communications for the Ann Arbor Public Schools, said the district has no plans to discontinue benefits for same-sex couples.

“We stand very firmly by our policy of providing these types of benefits for our employees,” Margolis said. “We will defend our right to provide these benefits because it’s the right thing to do.” Margolis also pointed out that the Ann Arbor Public Schools is not the only institution in the area to provide benefits to same-sex couples. The university and the city of Ann Arbor also provide them.

“I don’t know why in this particular instance (the Thomas More Law Center) has filed a suit against the public schools when there are other employers who provide these types of benefits,” Margolis said.

University spokeswoman Julie Peterson said the university is standing by its policy of giving benefits to same-sex couples and is keeping a close eye on the lawsuit against the Ann Arbor Public Schools.

“We believe that the decision about offering benefits to our employees and their various dependents is an employment decision and is not related to the definition of marriage,” Peterson said. “Our argument all along has been that employers like the University of Michigan offer package benefits in order to attract and maintain the very best employees and has nothing to do with the definition of marriage.” In December, Gillen said he could not rule out the possibility that he or his firm would sue the university over the issue.

Kary Moss, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan said the ACLU is doing what it can to assist the school district.

“We’ve opposed the lawsuit from the beginning and will continue to oppose it now that they are trying to use Proposal 2 as additional ammunition,” Moss said.

She added the ACLU has filed an amicus or “friend of the court” brief on behalf of the Ann Arbor Public Schools to publicly express their support for the district.

An amicus brief is a way for people or organizations who are not parties in a lawsuit to give their opinion about a specific issue in a case.

The university also filed an amicus brief when the suit was originally filed in 2003, but it was rejected by the court. Gross said it is not uncommon for state trial courts to reject amicus briefs simply on the basis that they do not want to take the filer’s viewpoint into consideration.

* From time to time, the journalist Andrew Sullivan makes the argument that the establishment of gay marriage, for which he is a prominent polemicist, is the only way of preventing a proliferation of marriage-lite alternatives such as civil unions and domestic partnerships. In a recent squib, he wrote that National Review is so hostile to gay marriage that we, “bizarrely,” favor the creation of “new and more elaborate marriage-lite options for gays and straights.” That would be bizarre, if true. Let us clarify our position. We favor a constitutional amendment as the only means to prevent federal and state judges from imposing gay marriage or marriage-lite without a vote of the people. We discussed one proposed amendment that would also have prohibited state legislatures from creating gay marriage or, indeed, granting any benefits to gay couples as such. Under this proposal, a legislature could decide that any two roommates would, for example, have the power to co-sign loans for each other, without inquiring about their conjugal status. A legislature could call this arrangement a “civil union” if it chose. A few observations about this idea: 1) We did not say that state legislatures should create such institutions; we said only that they should continue to have the ability to do so. Sullivan, who often lectures conservatives about the virtues of “federalism” when it is understood as rule by state judiciaries, should understand that. 2) It is not obvious that the ability of any two people to cosign each other’s loans would undermine marriage. Would a young man really be able to put off his girlfriend’s demand for marriage by signing up for this right, open to all roommates? 3) The thrust of our editorial was to say that the amendment should focus on the courts and that all other provisions were expendable. 4) When civil unions have actually been at issue, who has been more opposed to them–Sullivan or opponents of gay marriage such as ourselves? Who’s kidding whom here?

Senator Feinstein Announces Continued Opposition To Constitutional Amendment That Would Prohibit Same-Sex Marriage

Contact: Howard Gantman 202/224-9629

June 6, 2006

Washington, DC - U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today announced her continued opposition to a constitutional amendment that would prohibit same-sex marriage, the Marriage Protection Amendment. The following is the text of Senator Feinstein’s statement on the Senate Floor:

“Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Marriage Protection Amendment to the Constitution.

With all the problems in the world today, the Senate is spending valuable time debating a bill which we know does not have the votes for cloture, which is divisive, and which, I believe, does not belong on the national agenda.

The fact of the matter is that all family law has historically been relegated to the States.

Marriage, divorce, adoption, custody - all aspects of family law and domestic relations - have been the province of the States.

That’s what the Supreme Court has said in case after case - from In Re Burrus in 1890 to Rose v Rose in 1982.

In that 1982 case, the court affirmed the holding of In Re Burrus that:

‘[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the states, and not to the laws of the United States.’

Similarly, in Sosna v. Illinois (1975) the Supreme Court wrote:

‘Domestic relations [is] an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.’

And in 1982, then-Associate Justice Rehnquist, dissenting in Santosky v. Kramer, wrote:

‘The area of domestic relations…has been left to the States from time immemorial, and not without good reason.’

And just this past November, in a television interview, Justice Stephen Breyer stated very simply: ‘Family law is State law.’

So it’s clear that domestic relations have been the jurisdiction of States - and that’s where they should remain. I deeply believe that this body should not be involved in putting amendments in the Constitution dealing with any aspect of marriage, of divorce, of families, of adoption, of any of those areas. The States reign supreme.

So why is it when Republicans are all for reducing the federal government’s impact on people’s lives - until it comes to these stinging litmus test issues, whether gay marriage or end of life - they suddenly want the federal government to intervene?

For the life of me, I don’t understand why this keeps coming before this body. It is extraordinarily difficult to pass a constitutional amendment. We all know that. Both Houses have to pass it by 67 votes. Then, over a seven-year period, it goes out the States, where it has to be ratified by three-quarters of the States.

The last constitutional amendment that went out to be ratified by the States was the Equal Rights Amendment. A simple 25-word amendment that said:

‘Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.’

And guess what, they were not able to get the necessary 3/4 of the States over a seven-year period.

So, I don’t believe this constitutional amendment would be successful, even if passed out of this body.

I haven’t seen one passed in the 13 years I have been here. And it is extraordinarily difficult to get one ratified, as I said.

Family law, indeed, is the purview of the States. So, there’s no need for a constitutional amendment.

This proposed constitutional amendment strikes at the heart of States’ rights in the area of family law, and in doing so, actually undermines our Constitution.

Moreover, I believe that Americans believe that the States should deal with same-sex marriage as the States see fit. And so I do.

And, Americans are especially concerned about amending this Constitution if it means closing the door on civil unions.

Now, why do I say this? How do I know this? Fifty-three percent of Americans polled recently would oppose a constitutional amendment that also bans civil unions and domestic partnerships, such as we have established in California.

Many legal experts believe that this amendment would do just that. The language in the second sentence of the amendment is ambiguous, at best, stating that:

‘Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’

Now, some on the other side have argued that the amendment would still allow for legal unions passed by the States legislatures, just not those instituted by the courts.

More : accessmylibrary.com

Jun. 14–HARRISBURG – A state Senate committee yesterday threw out language in a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage that would have prohibited the state or any municipality from recognizing domestic partnerships. After a tense exchange among Republicans before a packed meeting room, the Judiciary Committee adopted a narrower version of a bill that passed the House last week, removing references that would have banned “marriage equivalent” relationships. By a vote of 13-1, the committee adopted an amended version that defines marriage as between “one man and one woman,” but leaves intact the legal recognition of domestic partnerships between both gay couples and unmarried heterosexual couples. “There is ambiguity about what the intention and consequences of the [original] wording would be,” said Sen. Jane Earll (R., Erie), who offered the amendment. “We want to make sure unintended consequences do not occur.” “I just think this amendment destroys the entire purpose” of a constitutional ban on gay marriage, said Sen. Jane Orie (R., Allegheny), the lone dissenting vote. Opponents of gay marriage say an amendment would back up a 10-year-old state law that defines marriage as existing only between a man and a woman. With the clock ticking toward summer recess on June 30 and a budget yet to be approved, the vote sets up a potential conflict between the House and the Senate on one of the most divisive issues of the day. Senate leaders said the proposal could come up for a vote as early as next week. It was unclear whether the amended bill would pass the Senate, but among committee members who voted for it was President Pro Tempore Robert Jubelirer (R., Blair). A similar amendment to the one offered by Earll failed in the House last week.

House Majority Leader Sam Smith (R., Jefferson) said yesterday evening that he had not seen the amended bill but that he would not bring up for a vote a bill that “does not achieve the goal of defining marriage.” Opponents of the constitutional amendment said the amended version would be less likely to endanger existing health and pension benefits offered by scores of private employers and some municipalities, including Philadelphia and Montgomery County. “We still believe we don’t need a constitutional amendment,” said Larry Frankel, legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. “But it is less harmful than the first version.” Montgomery County Solicitor Michael Marino, who wrote to lawmakers in March expressing concern that the broad language would invite lawsuits, said yesterday that he could support the amended version. “This will eliminate the unnecessary lawsuits,” he said. “That was the big criticism.” Lawyer Kevin Ray of Pepper Hamilton L.L.P. in Philadelphia, who has studied the issue, said that the amended version appeared to be less of a threat to existing rights but that it was unclear how the language would be interpreted by the courts or administrative bodies. “I don’t know that one can safely say the shortened amendment eliminated all the risk to existing benefits,” he said. Advocates for the original amendment language accused the Senate committee of trying to derail the bill. “Members who voted for the bill as amended must have had the intent to kill the marriage protection amendment,” said Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, which defines its mission as strengthening families by restoring traditional values to public life. Geer said that, of the 20 states that have constitutional bans on same-sex marriage, 14 used the broader definitions. Geer and others say the constitutional amendment is needed in addition to the law banning gay marriage to ensure that Pennsylvania courts do not legalize same-sex marriage, as courts did in Massachusetts. In doing so, he said, the courts are “revising the institution of marriage” and opening the door to the recognition of polygamy and group marriages. “It won’t affect my marriage, but we don’t know how it will affect marriage entirely,” Geer said. “But ‘one man and one woman’ has existed throughout civilization.” Several senators said they were angry that they were being forced to make a decision on such a controversial matter without the benefit of hearings. Sen. J. Barry Stout (D., Washington) drew applause when he said he was ashamed that the committee was being used to divert attention from issues that were more important to Pennsylvanians, including the budget and property tax reform. The bill must be approved by the Senate and returned to the House for a vote before the General Assembly takes its summer recess in order to go on the ballot as early as 2007. A constitutional amendment must be approved by the General Assembly in two consecutive sessions and then by voters as a ballot question. The Amendment Before and After House-approved amendment “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this commonwealth, and neither the commonwealth nor any of its political subdivisions shall create or recognize a legal status identical or substantially equivalent to that of marriage for unmarried individuals.”

PHOENIX, July 7 /PRNewswire/ – Arizona Together supporters, contributors and volunteers assembled in living rooms and conference rooms across yesterday for an official coalition rally of ‘NO’ on Protect Marriage Arizona – the ballot initiative that is an attack on domestic partnerships and that puts unmarried couples straight and same sex in jeopardy of losing employee benefits. Hosting multiple fundraisers threaded together via the Internet was the most fitting approach for the campaign fundraiser since support is widespread across the state. The web cast is archived online at the Arizona Together website. It was packed with useful information from the coalition leadership and was conducted on the threshold of the official signature filing of Protect Marriage Arizona with the Secretary of State’s Office.

“A Night of 100 Parties” assembled people from all walks of life in house parties large and small in every major market – Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff – as well as cities and towns across rural Arizona like Yuma and Overgaard. Connected via a web cast, hundreds gathered for an enthusiastic ‘call to action’ from Arizona Together campaign chair, Kyrsten Sinema and Treasurer Steve May.

Steve May opened the cast by commenting that this was the night that some thought would not be necessary because the opposition wouldn’t gather enough signatures to file the initiative, “They gathered over 200,000 signatures in six weeks! Two-thirds of every dollar that they’ve raised over the past year and one-half has gone to Nathan Sproul (professional petition gatherers),” commented May.

Kyrsten Sinema touched upon the negative impact on unmarried straight and same sex couples should this initiative pass, “Individuals that work for local governments could lose their health benefits,” referencing a similar initiative in Ohio where domestic partnerships were no longer recognized.

According to Arizona Together, Protect Marriage Arizona is an anti-domestic partner initiative because it disintegrates domestic partner benefits jeopardizing the lives of children, families and seniors throughout the state. If the amendment passes, Arizonans will lose their health insurance benefits, hospital visitation rights, decision-making powers and inheritance rights. Protect Marriage Arizona will not change state law in regards to gay marriage, as same-sex marriage is already against Arizona law. Under the guise of “protecting marriage,” Protect Marriage Arizona could also impact unmarried women seeking protection from an estranged partner canceling their right to file domestic violence charges or to secure a restraining order.

About Arizona Together

Arizona Together, a political campaign committee made up of individuals and organizations, is the initiative striving to protect the rights of unmarried couples in Arizona. The goal of Arizona Together is to defeat the “Protect Marriage Arizona” amendment, a proposed ballot measure and anti-domestic partner benefits initiative for the 2006 Arizona General Election. Visit http://www.aztogether.org/ for more information.

Aug. 8–DENVER - Normally domestic partnerships, marriages between a man and a woman, and marijuana don’t go together, but they did Monday.

Monday was the deadline to have initiatives qualify for the November ballot and three citizens groups submitted thousands more signatures to the Secretary of State’s Office than they needed to get their particular issue on to the Colorado ballot.

Each needed 67,829 registered voters to make the ballot.

Coloradans for Marriage submitted an estimated 131,000 signatures seeking to a state Constitution declaration that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Coloradans for Fairness on the other hand turned in 137,544 names for a measure that would declare that domestic partnerships is not a marriage.

Meanwhile, a group known as Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation had more than 129,000 signatures calling for the statewide legalization of marijuana. That’s the same group that last year successfully got Denver voters to legalize marijuana even though state and federal law still considers it a controlled substance.

“The fact that we collected nearly twice as many signatures as are required under statute highlights the widespread support for ending the madness of marijuana prohibition in Colorado,” SAFER campaign director Mason Tvert said. “This just goes to show that regardless of Colorado citizens’ political persuasions, many agree that punishing adults for using a substance less harmful than alcohol is an absurd waste of time, money and life.”

Secretary of State Gigi Dennis and her staff in the next month will have their hands full certifying the petition signatures from those groups as well as three others.

Last week, three other groups turned in petitions to get their measures onto this year’s ballot.

They include raising the state’s minimum wage to $6.85 an hour from $5.15, limiting the terms of appellate judges to 10 years, and imposing a strict code of ethics on elected officials that not only govern gifts that they can accept while in office, but also limiting what types of jobs they can take after leaving office.

The measures don’t include the nine that already have been certified for this year’s ballot.

Other measures that had gone through the process, but didn’t submit enough signatures by Monday’s deadline include bans against late-term abortions, requiring that only English is used in the state’s schools, and a failed plan to negate some of what voters approved last year with the passage of Referendum C.

Aug. 15–Opponents have vowed to enlist community support to fight a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage as well as benefits for domestic partners in Arizona.

A Monday call for volunteers to telephone and e-mail others for support followed a Thursday decision by a Maricopa County Superior Court judge that Proposition 107 does not violate the state’s single-subject amendment rule and can appear on the November ballot.

Ken Clark, campaign director of the Arizona Together campaign, said in the next two weeks a volunteer force of “thousands” will mobilize against the proposed amendment as new coalition members enlist in the group’s cause. Clark, however, would not discuss specifics of the campaign.

“I’m not going to give away details of our strategy,” he said.

The campaign also is seeking financial donations that, Clark said, would go toward field mobilization and legal defense.

Chuck Blanchard, attorney for the Arizona Together campaign, filed an appeal immediately after Thursday’s ruling. Blanchard’s appeal motion, as well as a response from Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, representing supporters of Proposition 107, is due Wednesday. Response motions to each filing are due in court two days later, with an Arizona Supreme Court ruling expected by Aug. 31.

Maricopa County Judge Douglas Rayes’ ruling was not unexpected, Clark said.

“We’ve been planning for every possible contingency,” he said. “We were ready for that.”

Blanchard argued in court that the proposed measure unconstitutionally forces voters who want to ban same-sex marriage to also bar benefits from civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Rayes said the proposal does not illegally tie two issues together that would force voters to either accept the package or dump the proposal.

“This amendment is designed to protect marriages from contemporary threats,” Schowen-gerdt said.

The first clause of the proposed amendment, he said, protects marriage from redefini-tion. The second clause, he explained, protects the unique status of marriage from marriage “substitutes,” such as civil unions and domestic partnerships or other forms of “marriage without the name.”

“This is about benefits, not same sex-marriage,” Clark said, calling the amendment a political campaign-year ploy.

The Arizona Together campaign has asked volunteers throughout Arizona to contact coordinators in Northern, Central and Southern Arizona.

May 11–By not having the right to marry, gay and lesbian couples in New Jersey say they continue to face financial issues that are complicating their tax returns and inheritance plans.

It is forcing them to look for answers to questions that for married couples already are relatively clear. For example, will your partner be hit with federal estate taxes when you die? (Answer: For married couples, no. For gay couples, yes).

“There’s a whole lot of issues married people take for granted that gays and lesbians can’t,” said Fran Goldberg, 56, of Neptune, who has been with partner Harriet Leyden for 11 years.

Goldberg and Leyden, along with Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. in Red Bank and the American Economic Planning Group Inc. in Watchung, recently put together a seminar at Moonstruck restaurant in Asbury Park for about 25 local gay and lesbian residents.

Their goal: to find answers to financial questions faced by gay couples.

In January 2004, New Jersey passed legislation that recognized domestic partnerships, giving same-sex couples some financial benefits, but the law did not resolve all of the financial and legal issues faced by same-sex partners.

“Being married is a good thing under U.S. tax laws,” said Jay Soled, a tax attorney and an accounting professor at Rutgers University, who outlined the financial differences between domestic partnerships and marriage.

For example, married people who die can pass their estates to their spouses without being taxed. Gays and lesbians don’t have the same tax break, which can make their estates a financial burden for their partners, Soled said.

The benefits to being married don’t stop with tax laws. Gay and straight couples can’t receive their partners’ Social Security benefits. And not all companies offer health benefits to same-sex couples, those attending the seminar said.

Gay and lesbian residents said it didn’t take too much imagination to come up with scenarios in which legal protections might come in handy. What if they were incapacitated and their family and partner couldn’t agree what to do?

To those in attendance, having the right to marry could make that issue and others easier to resolve.

“We want all of the protection we can have,” said Rose Mariano, 64, of Bradley Beach, who has been with her partner for 20 years.

Aug. 18–DENVER - With a 15th citizens’ initiative making this fall’s ballot Thursday, voters will consider more questions this year than they have in nearly a century.

The Secretary of State’s Office announced that the final citizen’s effort to submit petitions to place a measure on the November ballot had collected enough signatures from registered voters.

That effort, to be known as Amendment 45, is nearly identical to a referendum already placed on the ballot by the Colorado Legislature, which would create domestic partnerships for gays and lesbians.

The only difference between the amendment and Referendum I is that the initiative would alter the Colorado Constitution rather than merely changing state statutes to extend to gays some of the same rights married couples have.

The amendment also makes it clear that a domestic partnership is not marriage in an attempt to prevent the courts from defining it that way.

If that were to happen, the partnerships not only would be in conflict with existing state law, which already defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, but also another ballot question - Amendment 44 - which would place that law into the Constitution.

In all, there are eight citizens’ initiatives and seven referendums, one more ballot question than voters considered in 1914.

Some of the initiatives deal with such subjects as raising the state’s minimum wage to $6.85 an hour from $5.15, limiting the terms of appellate and supreme court judges to 10 years, and setting stricter ethical guidelines on elected and appointed governmental officials.

The referendums cover such topics as prohibiting employers from claiming labor tax deductions for any illegal immigrants they may hire to extending to the disabled the same property tax breaks the state gives to the elderly.

Backers of Amendment 45 had submitted the most signatures of all the citizens’ initiatives, 141,642. Of those names, more than 97,000 proved to be from registered voters.

Each initiative only needed 67,829 signatures to make the November ballot.

CITIZENS’ INITIATIVES

The 15 ballot questions are:

- Amendment 38 alters rules dealing with petitions for citizens’ initiatives.

- Amendment 39 requires increased spending in classrooms.

- Amendment 40 limits terms for Court of Appeals and Supreme Court judges.

- Amendment 41 establishes ethical standards for elected officials.

- Amendment 42 raises the state’s minimum wage.

- Amendment 43 makes it legal to possess small amounts of marijuana.

- Amendment 44 puts marriage between a man and a woman in the Constitution.

- Amendment 45 adds domestic partnerships to the Constitution.

- Referendum E extends the state’s homestead exemption to the disabled.

- Referendum F removes recall timelines from the Constitution.

- Referendum G eliminates obsolete provisions from the Constitution.

- Referendum H bans tax deductions for hiring undocumented workers.

- Referendum I creates domestic partnerships under state statutes.

- Referendum J creates the Public Schools Expenditure Accountability Act.

- Referendum K allows the Colorado attorney general to initiate immigrations lawsuits.

Copyright © 2006, The Pueblo Chieftain, Colo.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business

News.

For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

New Version Includes Domestic Partnership Information and Fascinating Prenuptial Clauses of the Rich, Famous and Eccentric

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 21 /PRNewswire/ – Scott Weston and Robert Nachshin, celebrity divorce attorneys, best known for their precedent-setting win in the Barry Bonds prenuptial case, announced today that they have issued a second edition of “I Do, You Do … But Just Sign Here: A Quick and Easy Guide to Cohabitation, Prenuptial and Postnuptial Agreements” (ExecuProv Press), according to Scott Weston, partner at Nachshin & Weston in West Los Angeles.

The book has served as a comprehensive, layperson’s guide in helping those who live together, who are contemplating marriage or who have been married, understand the intricacies of marital agreements. The new version includes the most up-to-date information on domestic partnerships and what individuals entering into those arrangements should know. “Domestic partnerships are viewed similarly to marital partnerships.” Weston explains, “However, many people entering into them don’t realize the serious legal consequences if and when those partnerships dissolve. It’s important that such couples protect their interests and assets.”

In the new edition, without naming names, authors Nachshin & Weston also share some of the outlandish clauses many of the rich, famous and eccentric couples insist upon in their agreements. “Not all the stipulations we share with the reader in this new book chapter are from our clients exclusively,” Weston says, “they have come to us from other sources as well.” Weston says readers of the book’s first edition, including media sources, had queried both Weston and Nachshin repeatedly, asking for such information.

Family Law Specialists and LA Superlawyers, Scott Weston and Robert Nachshin, represent celebrities and high net worth type individuals in sports, music, film and television. Their client roster includes rapper Snoop Dog (Calvin Brodeus), Walt Disney Corporation’s CEO, Robert Iger, pop idol singer/actor David Cassidy, screenwriter and author Terry McMillan, light middleweight champ, Oscar de la Hoya, Alana Stewart and Sheree Smith, former wives of Rod Stewart and Will Smith, respectively; the late country legend Buck Owens, baseball greats Gary Sheffield and Bret Saberhagen, among others.

The book is now available at all major bookstore outlets including Barnes & Noble, Borders and Amazon.com.

Sep. 12–Less than two months after the University of Louisville became Kentucky’s first public university to offer health benefits for domestic partners, including those of the same sex, the University of Kentucky will consider whether it, too, should provide those benefits. The university will study the issue and several others, including affordable child care and tuition breaks for spouses and children, that were identified in a work-life survey completed last year, spokesman Jay Blanton said.

The formation of the committees on those issues will be announced today, when the university’s human-resources department reports on the work-life survey to a Board of Trustees’ committee at the board’s regularly scheduled meeting. The committees are part of the university’s response to survey results. Blanton said university President Lee Todd had not taken a stand on domestic-partner benefits – or any of the other issues – but wants to do what would help UK reach its goal of becoming a Top 20 university. “What he wants to do is look at a comprehensive pay-and-benefits package that makes us as competitive as possible,” Blanton said. Many of the schools UK competes with offer domestic-partner benefits. Kyle Dippery, chairman of the Staff Senate, said that forming a committee is a good step. He supports extending partner benefits. “Not offering the benefits is a discrimination issue,” Dippery said. “And that, to me, is wrong.” On Thursday, the Staff Senate plans to vote on a resolution asking whether its members support benefits for same-sex partners. Three years ago, a resolution that opposed extending benefits to domestic partners failed. The new committees on domestic-partner benefits and other issues are expected to make recommendations to the administration. No changes in benefits would occur before July. The decision to even study domestic-partner benefits at UK might set off political wrangling far from the campus itself. After U of L’s July decision, several conservative officials publicly denounced the move. Sen. Dick Roeding, R-Lakeside Park, called it “repulsive,” saying it attracted “the wrong kind of people” to Kentucky.

A few lawmakers, including Rep. Stan Lee, R-Lexington, said they were considering legislation to bar universities from offering domestic-partner benefits. Lee said in a July interview with the Herald-Leader that public universities that provide domestic partnerships are using tax dollars to support a lifestyle that an “overwhelming majority of people in this state don’t agree with.” Nearly 75 percent of Kentucky voters in 2004 approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

But Rep. Kathy Stein, D-Lexington, said yesterday UK is “infinitely wise” to study the issue of domestic-partner benefits. “When you’re trying to become a Top 20 university, you have to look at all the ways to get there,” she said. “I think it’s indisputable that offering domestic-partnership benefits is one of the ways to keep and attract quality employees.”

She said she hopes the legislature doesn’t try to block public universities from joining private institutions, including Berea and Centre colleges, in offering such benefits. In fact, if UK does decide to move forward with offering them, she hopes the state government will provide the same coverage to its 33,000 workers. However, Rep. Ron Crimm, a Louisville Republican, said he’s worried that such an expansion of benefits could ruin the state financially. “The committee has a responsibility to look at the total impact this is going to have,” Crimm said of UK’s panel. “How do we define domestic partnerships? If I lost my wife and my mother moved in, would that make her a domestic partner?” He said without using marriage as a threshold, it would be difficult to determine at what point a domestic-partner relationship would be established. “I think this is asking for many problems,” he said.

Copyright © 2006, The Lexington Herald-Leader, Ky.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business

News.

For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

KASICH: In the second “Factor Flashback” segment tonight, does conservative Christian leader Dr. James Dobson actually support legislation that might help gay Americans? Well Bill asked him not too long ago. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) O’REILLY: Your position is like my position. People who can’t get married in America should have the same rights in hospital visitation, financial areas, is that what it’s all about?

DR. JAMES DOBSON, FOUNDER & CHAIRMAN, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY: That is what it’s all about, Bill. Thank you for having me on. There is here in Colorado a bill to create civil unions for homosexuals. We think that’s a very bad idea. And, yet the democrats in the state legislature have the majority in both Houses, and this could very easily pass. We’re very much opposed to it. In – in contrast there is another bill that our conservative legislators have asked us to support and we agree with it, which is not based on sexual behavior, it’s based on human need. So if you have two sisters who are 80 or 82 years of age, they can get benefits, they can authorize medical care for one another. Or a grandfather and a retarded child, or any combination thereof in the states can get benefits.

O’REILLY: But it’s the same thing – it’s the same bill. It just takes the sexual description out of the bill, correct?

DOBSON: Well, see, Bill, contrary to the propaganda that’s out there, we believe in equality under the law. And we don’t believe that you set aside people and not allow them the same benefits.

But homosexuality is not mentioned in SP166 at all, because it is – you can’t qualify it by sexuality.

O’REILLY: Listen, I agree with you. The – I’ve been saying this for years, that the solution to this problem as far as rights are concerned in other areas than marriage is to have partnerships that anybody, including gays, could enter into that give them the same rights as married couples. Now…

DOBSON: You know, Bill, can I just add one thing?

O’REILLY: Sure.

DOBSON: Everybody has those rights anyway.

O’REILLY: But they don’t, though.

DOBSON: You can establish that with a legal contract. So all it does is put that legal right into the law.

O’REILLY: But there are some states that make it very, very difficult for unmarried people to do the things that other people want to do.

But, look, say I’m – say I’m a gay guy and I want to get married, and I say, “Listen, Doctor, you’re a Christian, and you follow Jesus. And my basic human rights are being violated, because I can’t marry my partner. And you’re – you know, this is against the Constitution.”

How do you answer the human rights violation, which is the big thing?

DOBSON: Bill, while people have the right to equality under the law, they do not have the right to define marriage, redefine marriage. For 5,000 years in every continent on earth, marriage has been the standard between a man and a woman. Why? Because of children. Because it is best for children to have a mother and a father.

More : accessmylibrary.com

Sep. 19–There are two measures on the November ballot regarding same-sex partnerships. Proponents of Referendum I, which would create a legal vehicle to register domestic partnerships, say there’s no legal conflict between I and Amendment 43, which would ban gay marriage in the state constitution. That’s because Referendum I is not permission for gay marriage, according to Citizens for Fairness lawyer Pat Steadman. It says so in the title that will appear on the ballot and it says so in the 12-page text of the law referred by the Legislature. Steadman and Sean Duffy, a former deputy chief of staff under Gov. Bill Owens, were in Pueblo Monday to campaign for Referendum I. Duffy is the Citizens for Fairness executive director. The group started out to petition for a citizens initiative, but decided instead to support the Legislature’s referendum. “We wanted a statute - not a constitutional amendment - that lays out in succinct fashion how people can get a license to deal with basic rights for domestic partners, things like visiting each other in hospital, rather than relying on contracts and power-of-attorney,” Duffy said. “It’s very definitely not gay marriage. We’ve been kind of a fusion between the hard left and hard right. Even some people who plan to vote for the constitutional ban on gay marriage still plan to vote for Referendum I, to give these couples basic rights.”

Children who are being raised by gay couples may be among the beneficiaries of the referendum, Steadman said. At present, if a child is born to one member of the couple by artificial insemination, the law only allows one of the parents to be a legal parent. “There are two people making the commitment to raise the child, but only one of them has a legal obligation,” he said. Children also may be deprived of workers’ compensation death benefits if one of their parents is killed on the job. “Children (of gay couples) are more vulnerable because Colorado law ignores their parents,” he said. In practice, if the referendum passes, gay couples may go to the county clerk for a license declaring themselves domestic partners. They can sign to make the arrangement legally binding right there, or they can choose to have some sort of ceremony or celebration. If they later split up, they may dissolve the relationship in court, just like a marriage dissolution, to settle property and child custody issues. The law would require employers to give domestic partners the same family benefits they give other employees. “There are people who say you could do all this in your lawyer’s office, but the Colorado Bar Association has endorsed this referendum because they know that isn’t practical,” Steadman said. “For one thing, it’s expensive to get all these contracts and documents. And even if you have the documents, they could be challenged.” Fourteen states have adopted bans on gay marriage. Colorado has a statutory ban now and Amendment 43 would place it in the constitution. Steadman and Duffy said Colorado is the first state to have the combination of domestic partnerships and a gay marriage ban on the same ballot.

“In those other 14 states, they weren’t asked what to do about gay partnerships,” Steadman said. “But in Colorado, rather than just voting to exclude gay people from marriage, we have the opportunity to say what we will do to give these people and their children basic protections under the law.”

Copyright © 2006, The Pueblo Chieftain, Colo.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business

News.

For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

Virginia’s senior U.S. senator hinted Tuesday that he may break with fellow Republicans and oppose a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages. As the Senate completed a second day of debate on the proposal, Sen. John Warner issued a written statement declaring his concern that the current wording of the amendment would prevent Virginia…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

To Marilyn Musgrave, marriage and money were among the issues debated during Transgender Bisexual Gay Lesbian Awareness Days (T’BGLAD) business panel on Tuesday night. The panelists spoke on the topics of domestic partnerships, political activism and religious conflict, to 11 listeners in the Lory Student Center.

The new…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Eleven states added a referendum to the ballot Tuesday concerning the union of marriage and voters in 11 states decided against allowing same-sex marriage.

Gay marriage is an important issue in California. Costal states are generally more liberal than the middle states, and California is a true testament to that description, with its San Francisco marriages last year.

Opponents of President George W. Bush and his views on gay marriage – that it should not be…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

A new U.N. directive which took effect Friday dropped problematic language about domestic partnerships, but still allows U.N. staffers’ same-sex partners to collect benefits if permitted by the laws of their home countries.

The powerful U.N. budget committee asked Secretary-General Kofi Annan to re-examine a directive that took effect Feb. 1 which allowed gay and lesbian…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi today spoke late this afternoon in strong opposition to a Republican proposal to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage. The House voted 227 to 186, far short of the two-thirds vote needed to pass the amendment. Below are Pelosi’s remarks on the House floor:

“Mr. Speaker, I have been married for over 41 years. I want to hear some applause for that. [Applause.] I am glad to see my Republican colleagues appreciate that wonderful accomplishment. I certainly respect the institution of marriage. As the mother of five and the grandmother of five, I appreciate the value of family. My husband and I value family in our community as a source of strength, and a source of comfort to the people.

“What constitutes that family is an individual and personal decision, but for all, it is a place where people find love and support. As for me, I agree with Vice President Cheney, when he said…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

THE MOST OUTSPOKEN and consistently negative response to proposals that the state recognize same-sex marriage has come from the Catholic Church. (1) “Marriage” in this context concerns the state-sanctioned exclusive, consensual union of spouses that is terminated only with a legal divorce; “civil marriage” needs to be distinguished from “sacramental marriage,” “common law marriage,” or other uses of the term. Rather than taking a constructive position on the question of civil marriage, this article confines itself to examining the moral logic of the Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage as expressed in documents issued by the papal and episcopal magisterium. It argues that the Church’s strong suit is its recognition that marriage needs to be strengthened and has strong ties to particular cultural contexts, but that to do so it is not necessary to speak of gay people in a derogatory manner, to demean the value of committed gay partnerships, and to ignore the demands of social justice and the rights of gay people and their families.

This article proceeds in the following stages. The first part briefly describes some salient features of the contemporary social context surrounding the same-sex marriage debate. The second part reviews some key themes of recent statements of the magisterium. The third section subjects these statements and their arguments to ethical analysis and critique. It argues that the magisterium should continue to advance only its argument from marriage as a social institution and abandon the other arguments it has deployed against same-sex marriage.

THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES

Over the course of the last 40 years civil society has become more accepting of gay people. (2) The sexual behavior of gay people is probably as diverse as is it among heterosexuals. It seems to run along the same broad spectrum from strict monogamy to promiscuity. Some gay people, like some heterosexuals, regard recreational sexual activity between consenting adults as morally acceptable. Others embrace a very elevated moral interpretation of sexual ethics and find a minimalist sexual ethics of consenting adults to be morally unacceptable.

Some gay people believe that sex has a deep human meaning that is achieved only in lifelong and exclusive interpersonal commitment. They live in settled relationships that involve many practical interdependencies. About one-fourth of the 600,000 same-sex couples currently living together in the United States are raising children. (3) Gay people live in the same houses, often and increasingly raise children jointly, need health care insurance, and visit one another in hospitals. They rely on one another’s paychecks, Social Security benefits, disability insurance, sick and bereavement leave, death benefits, and unemployment insurance. They contribute to their neighborhoods and other intermediary institutions and generally strive to be responsible members of their communities. (4)

Under current legal arrangements in most states, many people in these relationships are deprived of rights and benefits that are granted to married couples, including hospital visitation rights, joint income tax filing, rights to make income transfers and gifts, child and spousal support in the case of dissolution of the relationship, the right to make medical decisions for an incompetent partner, sponsorship for immigration, and so forth. (These concerns obviously also pertain to cohabiting heterosexual couples as well.)

Some activists argue that to meet these needs, cohabiting gay couples ought to be granted some form of legal recognition–special registration, civil unions, or marriage. (5) Not all gay people, of course, want marriage for themselves or even think it desirable for marriage to be extended to gay people in general. (6) Some gay people, going further, argue that the distinctive value of “queer” culture needs to be protected against the hegemonic design of the heterosexist majority to impose its own norm on sexual “others.” Other people, however, both gay and straight, are convinced that, for a variety of reasons, marriage ought to be available to gay people. They argue, for example, that a gay person whose partner of 20 years becomes incapacitated for medical reasons ought to have the power to make important medical and financial decisions that is taken for granted by spouses. Children raised in gay households present a particularly compelling case, especially since, as the Church teaches, the “best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.” (7) Children reared by same-sex adults need health care, inheritance rights, education, hospital visitation, etc. Sexual ethics and marriage law here are inextricably linked to social justice.

A number of European political communities have decided to grant various forms of legal recognition to gay couples. Iceland allows for registered cohabitation, France recognizes domestic partnerships, Sweden has civil unions, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Germany allow for same-sex marriage, and Belgium grants same-sex couples all the rights of marriage except the right to adopt. Courts in British Columbia and Ontario have granted the right to marry to gays.

The issue currently roils the American political scene with an intensity that is second only to the abortion debate. Recent polls indicate that most Americans are not in favor of same-sex marriage. As of July of 2003, 53 percent of Americans were either opposed or strongly opposed to same-sex marriage, against 38 percent who were either in favor or strongly in favor. (8) These percentage points, though, reflect a statistically significant decrease in popular opposition to same-sex marriage since the mid-1990s. A gap exists along racial, denominational, and especially generational lines, where, for example, 47 percent of people polled between the ages of 18-29 approved of same-sex marriage in contrast to only 19 percent by people over 65. (9)

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act restricted the definition of marriage to a relationship between one man and one woman. This act pertains to benefits guaranteed by federal law, but does not invalidate more extensive rights that might be granted by state governments. Thirty seven states have passed laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Some of these states, however, allow same-sex partnership registries that grant limited benefits and rights.

Since July 1, 2000, gay partners have been able to be joined legally in “civil unions” in the State of Vermont. The Vermont legislature was the first in the country to grant many marriage benefits to same-sex couples.

On November 18, 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that denying the right to obtain marriage licenses to gay couples is against the state constitution, and specifically a violation of its requirement that all citizens receive equal protection under the law. (10) On Monday, March 29, 2004, the Massachusetts legislature adopted a state constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage but creates civil unions with the same rights and benefits that are currently afforded to married couples under state law. If the amendment is approved in two more legislative votes, it will be put to the popular vote in the fall of 2006. To make matters more confusing, as of May 17 the Commonwealth began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

More : accessmylibrary.com

As society struggles to redefine marriage, relationships and family, employers are faced with the dichotomy of adhering to societal changes or complying with regulatory provisions. Employers must frequently ask themselves what benefits and rights their company is required to extend to same-sex spouses and domestic partners, and what benefits and rights the firm can choose to offer at its own discretion.

In order to address these questions, businesses must first analyze how existing laws define marriage and domestic partnerships. Under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) “any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States … define ‘marriage’ as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ’spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.”

Pursuant to DOMA, federal regulations only extend rights and protections to opposite sex marriages, preempting state regulatory provisions that treat same sex…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Employers that expand benefits eligibility beyond the traditional family–whether they do so because of diversity goals, competition for labor or simply because it seems fair–must address not only the distinct rights of marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships, but also the ensuing conflicts between local, state and federal laws.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The pace of change in the benefits eligibility of same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partners has accelerated since 2000 when Vermont coined the term “civil union,” reaching its peak on May 17 when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. (For more information on recent judicial actions, see “Debating Same-Sex Couples’ Rights” on page 90.)

In 38 states, however, laws have been enacted to mirror the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA), which defines marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman. Under the act, states are not required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

In spite of that resistance, the well-publicized changes in some states’ laws, increasing cultural acceptance of nontraditional families and competition for talent may spur HR professionals to consider bringing same-sex or opposite-sex domestic partners or same-sex spouses under their company’s benefits umbrella. Whether they decide to do it voluntarily or in compliance with laws and ordinances, these changes require planning and diligence, because legal changes in domestic partner status could increase the complexity of taxes on benefits, HR professionals and consultants say.

Tricky Tax Questions

The first step toward figuring out how covering these individuals will affect your company’s benefits and payroll systems is to understand the terminology.

Each state has its own individual treatment of same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partnerships, says Paul Cates, director of public education for the American Civil Liberties Union’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project in New York. While the term “domestic partnership” applies in all cases to unmarried same-sex or heterosexual couples who declare their commitment, the meaning of the term varies with the rights that individual states afford these couples.

“At the low end, domestic partnership is nothing more than a registry” for unmarried same-sex or opposite-sex couples, says James Esseks, litigation director for the project. A state registry helps these committed couples prove their status to obtain health benefits, he says.

“At the high end, California has quite a comprehensive state domestic partnership system,” which, as of January, will give couples many of the rights that the state gives married couples, he says. This law, which is similar to Vermont’s civil unions, differs from marriage in two main ways, he says: Domestic partnerships are entered into and terminated differently than marriages, and…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Beginning Dec. 1, 2006, Champaign County employees in domestic partnerships will receive joint medical benefits.

The Champaign County Board voted to include non-union county employees who are in domestic partnerships into health insurance plans at their meeting Thursday night.

The action, which will affect both heterosexual and homosexual domestic partnerships, carried 27 to 7.

Kimberlie Kranich, co-founder of the 85 Percent Coalition, an organization that fights for equal…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

Anti-gay rights activist Mike Gabbard has attacked Gov. Ben Cayetano, asserting that Cayetano’s push for a “domestic partnership” bill to extend marriage-related benefits to same-gender couples smacks of approval of same-sex marriages.

He is astounded, Gabbard said yesterday, that a declaration can be made in the same week that voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment that, in effect, bans same-sex marriage.

But while Gabbard interpreted passage of the measure that gives the Legislature the authority to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples as also a rejection of domestic partnerships, others who worked with Gabbard to pass the amendment disagree.

Jennifer Diesman, a spokeswoman for Save Traditional Marriage-’98, which was formed solely for the passage of the amendment, said the group has no position on domestic partnerships, which would extend marriage rights but not marital status to gay couples.

The polls done for Save Traditional Marriage revealed that isle residents have no problem with gay relationships and homosexuality, but they balked at having marriage extended to homosexuals, Diesman said. The group’s statewide surveys, Diesman added, pointed to wider acceptance of domestic partnerships than same-sex marriages.

“People are uncomfortable denying rights and benefits to any group of people. A certain segment that voted “yes” (on the constitutional amendment) favors domestic partnerships,” she said.

Diesman also noted that Hawaii’s Future Today, the group that opposes same-gender marriage, prostitution and gambling and whose leaders interlock with Save Traditional Marriage’s, supported a 1997 reciprocal beneficiaries bill that’s a limited version of domestic partnerships.

That bill, unmatched anywhere in the nation for what it granted gay couples, was part of the compromise that allowed voters to have their say on same-sex marriage, Diesman added. It extended rights such as hospital visitation, probate and property transfers but not child custody, alimony and spousal privilege.

“Domestic partnership is just another name for same-sex marriage,” said Gabbard, who stressed that he wasn’t speaking for Save Traditional Marriage, although he is a member of its steering committee.

Gabbard, who founded Stop Promoting Homosexuality International, said he was speaking as chairman of the Alliance for Traditional Marriage.

Gabbard opposed the state law that prohibits discrimination of gays in employment. ” ‘Special rights’ should not be given on the basis of sexual orientation and behavior,” he said.

Cayetano, who was among the 69 percent who voted “yes” on the anti-gay marriage amendment, wants the Legislature to approve a comprehensive domestic partnership bill partly to counter assertions that the state is intolerant because of the new constitutional provision that would limit marriage to one man and one woman.

Cayetano’s position is not new. As early as 1996, he saw domestic partnerships as the way to end what is now a nearly decade-long debate over same-sex marriage that has divided the isles.

“The institution of marriage should be left to the church. The government needs to explore its role in marriages,” Cayetano said back then. “The government should not be in the role of sanctifying marriages.”

Gabbard said gays don’t need domestic partnerships because the rights they’re seeking can be obtained through contracts, wills and trusts.

Civil rights attorney Dan Foley, who represents the three gay couples that sued the state in 1991 for the right to marry, wondered why Gabbard sees the need for a lawyer to have to codify every long-term gay relationship.

“It is disingenuous for him to say that domestic partnerships are the same as same-sex marriages,” Foley said.

“Legally and morally, they are very different things. Domestic partnerships have a far lesser status.”

Jackie Young, campaign director for the unsuccessful effort to derail the anti-gay marriage amendment, said she fully backs Cayetano’s plan to have the Legislature adopt a comprehensive domestic partnership bill for gay couples.

“For some reason, the word ‘marriage’ has more people hung up than it should,” she said.

Source : starbulletin.com

The same-sex marriage debate resumes today with the Senate Judiciary Committee set to hold a public hearing and decide which direction to head in the divisive issue.

Eight measures are before the committee, with proposals ranging from a constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian couples from marrying, to one that would create domestic partnerships and grant them some of the same benefits as heterosexual married couples.

Proponents of same-gender marriage say they oppose any of the suggested amendments, and favor the domestic partnership bill, though noting it would exclude federal benefits and not be recognized if a Hawaii couple move to another state.

“Whether you call it domestic partnership, reciprocal beneficiaries or pizza for two, it’s still second-class citizenship,” said Tracey Bennett, a lobbyist for the Gay and Lesbian Community Center, in testimony submitted to the committee for its hearing in the state Capitol auditorium.

On the other hand, the Hawaii Catholic Conference supports proposed amendments limiting marriage to a man and a woman, and is against domestic partnerships and other bills that would grant benefits to same-sex couples and “establish a category which is parallel to marital status in all but name.”

Source : starbulletin.com

Saying the issue was “long overdue” for a visit, two University of Nebraska faculty members urged the NU Board of Regents to add a discussion on domestic partner benefits to its to-do list Saturday.

“The time has come,” said John Wunder, a U. Nebraska history professor and president-elect of the Academic Senate. “We should be…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

During Tuesday’s elections, Texas citizens will have the opportunity to vote for or against Proposition 2, an amendment to the state constitution that will forbid marriage or any legal status similar to marriage that isn’t between a man and a woman.

This issue has impacted…

Source : accessmylibrary.com

In his article entitled “The Emerging Menu of Quasi-Marriage Options,” Professor William Eskridge urges “traditionalists” to join with the gay rights lobby in supporting same-sex “marriage.” Eskridge’s objective is to build a coalition that seeks to minimize the number of “quasi-marriage” entrées currently available on what he describes as a “marriage menu.”

Eskridge is absolutely right in stating that experimental laws formalizing domestic partnerships and Vermont’s civil unions will undermine the institution of marriage. He is also correct that “traditionalists” are troubled by the “quasi-marriage menu” created by gay activists. Fundamentally, however, Eskridge’s argument in support of same-sex marriage rests upon an inconsistency that traditionalists cannot accept.

The recent development of domestic partnerships and civil unions and the recognition of other “marriage-like” relationships have been vigorously opposed by supporters of traditional marriage. Eskridge, having endorsed the “menu” concept at every step, changes his position at the end of his article and urges that traditionalists join gay-marriage activists to add yet another item to that menu. Eskridge’s article suggests that same-sex “marriage” is the entrée that gay-marriage proponents have sought all along – with civil unions and the other “quasi-marriage” items being just appetizers.
– fall short of marriage not because they are called by another name. They fall short because they are, in reality, not marriage.

I. Marriage Isn’t A Menu Item

Professor Eskridge suggests that the “marriage menu” has always offered a variety of options for individuals, ranging from friendship to cohabitation to fully-recognized marriage. But marriage is not comprised of a menu, since until very recently, there was no “marriage menu.” Individuals were either married or they weren’t.

Eskridge’s suggestion that dating, friendship and cohabitation are “quasi-marriage” relationships is simply inaccurate. One is not in a “quasi-marriage” merely because the law protects aspects of one’s relationship. These types of relationships are no more regulated than any other contractual relationship between total strangers. The status of being “Friends” does not receive any special legal recognition; the same criminal and tort laws apply to enemies. Two people may be friends or dating, yet they are not in a relationship anything like marriage.

Even under the famous California palimony case, Marvin v. Marvin, cohabitants were treated no differently than other contracting parties. There was no legal privilege based upon the cohabiting relationship; the law granted recovery in quasi-contract. The decision was not grounded in a theory of “quasi-marriage” or anything remotely like it. The parties were merely compensated for the effort and services they provided each other, preventing what the law calls “unjust enrichment.” These are the very same legal protections that would be afforded to a plumber who agrees to fix a neighbor’s garbage disposal in return for reasonable compensation. Such protections are not related to marriage and family, but merely to the individuals’ respective promises to one another.

One may enter into many different types of relationships created by law: power of attorney, quasi-contract, donor and beneficiary, and guardian and ward. But these are not marriages, or even “quasi-marriages,” just because the law regulates such private relationships.

More : writ.news.findlaw.com

In his article entitled “The Emerging Menu of Quasi-Marriage Options,” Professor William Eskridge urges “traditionalists” to join with the gay rights lobby in supporting same-sex “marriage.” Eskridge’s objective is to build a coalition that seeks to minimize the number of “quasi-marriage” entrées currently available on what he describes as a “marriage menu.”

Eskridge is absolutely right in stating that experimental laws formalizing domestic partnerships and Vermont’s civil unions will undermine the institution of marriage. He is also correct that “traditionalists” are troubled by the “quasi-marriage menu” created by gay activists. Fundamentally, however, Eskridge’s argument in support of same-sex marriage rests upon an inconsistency that traditionalists cannot accept.

The recent development of domestic partnerships and civil unions and the recognition of other “marriage-like” relationships have been vigorously opposed by supporters of traditional marriage. Eskridge, having endorsed the “menu” concept at every step, changes his position at the end of his article and urges that traditionalists join gay-marriage activists to add yet another item to that menu. Eskridge’s article suggests that same-sex “marriage” is the entrée that gay-marriage proponents have sought all along – with civil unions and the other “quasi-marriage” items being just appetizers.
– fall short of marriage not because they are called by another name. They fall short because they are, in reality, not marriage.

I. Marriage Isn’t A Menu Item

Professor Eskridge suggests that the “marriage menu” has always offered a variety of options for individuals, ranging from friendship to cohabitation to fully-recognized marriage. But marriage is not comprised of a menu, since until very recently, there was no “marriage menu.” Individuals were either married or they weren’t.

Eskridge’s suggestion that dating, friendship and cohabitation are “quasi-marriage” relationships is simply inaccurate. One is not in a “quasi-marriage” merely because the law protects aspects of one’s relationship. These types of relationships are no more regulated than any other contractual relationship between total strangers. The status of being “Friends” does not receive any special legal recognition; the same criminal and tort laws apply to enemies. Two people may be friends or dating, yet they are not in a relationship anything like marriage.

Even under the famous California palimony case, Marvin v. Marvin, cohabitants were treated no differently than other contracting parties. There was no legal privilege based upon the cohabiting relationship; the law granted recovery in quasi-contract. The decision was not grounded in a theory of “quasi-marriage” or anything remotely like it. The parties were merely compensated for the effort and services they provided each other, preventing what the law calls “unjust enrichment.” These are the very same legal protections that would be afforded to a plumber who agrees to fix a neighbor’s garbage disposal in return for reasonable compensation. Such protections are not related to marriage and family, but merely to the individuals’ respective promises to one another.

One may enter into many different types of relationships created by law: power of attorney, quasi-contract, donor and beneficiary, and guardian and ward. But these are not marriages, or even “quasi-marriages,” just because the law regulates such private relationships.

More : writ.news.findlaw.com

Just two months after being instructed to do so by the New Jersey Supreme Court, New Jersey’s legislature has amended its marriage laws to provide equal benefits to same-sex couples. The legislature did so by granting same-sex couples access to “civil unions,” a status equivalent to marriage in all but name.

This decision will disappoint supporters of gay marriage, and rightfully so. It is, however, arguably consistent with the views of the New Jersey voters the legislature represents. When polled, New Jersey voters strongly (by 60 percent) favor rights for gay couples, less than a majority (44 percent in favor, 50 percent opposed) support same-sex marriage.

Lewis v. Harris: The Impetus for New Jersey’s Civil Union Bill

On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, finding that it violated Massachusetts’ constitution for the state to withhold the benefits of marriage from same-sex couples. That decision, of course, led Massachusetts to legalize same-sex marriage – becoming the first (and still the only) state to do so.

Interestingly, in New Jersey, the same-sex marriage issue had already begun percolating through the courts when the Goodridge decision was handed down. At that time, a New Jersey trial court, in Lewis v. Harris, had already issued a ruling refusing to conclude that New Jersey’s’s longstanding ban on same-sex marriage violated the state’s constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. (I wrote about the trial court’s ruling in detail in a prior column.) At the time, the New Jersey trial court’s ruling was typical of those issued by courts around the country at the time.

Subsequently, the New Jersey legislature adopted a domestic partnership law, which I have described in detail in a previous column. Under that law, which took effect in 2004, same-sex couples could register as domestic partners, and therefore gain a set of rights. (Although the law will continue to recognize domestic partnerships already created, the civil union will trump that law with respect to couples not yet registered.) However, these rights exclude some of the very rights couples tend to find most significant - such as the right of entitlement to support or property redistribution upon dissolution of the partnership, and the right to have private employers grant an employee’s partner insurance (and other, similar) benefits. Originally, the law did not even include the right to inherit from a partner at death, but it was later amended to provide that right.

Eventually, the trial court’s decision in Lewis v. Harris was appealed. In an opinion that was strikingly poorly-reasoned, the appellate court agreed with the trial court that the New Jersey Constitution does not mandate that same-sex couples be permitted to marry. The majority cited the religious foundations of the institution of marriage – though such a perspective was patently improper under the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause. It also characterized the “essence” of marriage as revolving around procreation - ignoring, among other salient points, same-sex couples’ ability to legally adopt children together in New Jersey; to bring children from prior unions into their union; and to procreate using donor sperm or a surrogate mother.

Source : writ.news.findlaw.com

Mayor Edward I. Koch yesterday ordered that paid bereavement leave be granted to New York City employees who live as unmarried couples, homosexual or heterosexual, when their partners or partners’ close family members die.

Mayor Edward I. Koch yesterday ordered that paid bereavement leave be granted to New York City employees who live as unmarried couples, homosexual or heterosexual, when their partners or partners’ close family members die.

The directive, Executive Order 123, took effect immediately, granting official recognition to domestic partnerships among couples who register as such. The order defined how the city would expand its definition of a family:

‘’Domestic partners are two people, both of whom are 18 years of age or older and neither of whom is married, who have a close and committed personal relationship involving shared responsibilities, who have lived together for a period of one year or more on a continuous basis at the time of registration, and who have registered as domestic partners.'’

City employees in such relationships would be eligible for four-day leaves on the death of their partners or their partners’ parents, children or relatives living in the same home as the couple. Registration forms will be ready in several days, officials said. ‘Unusual to Our Parents’

‘’Practices or policies that might have seemed unacceptable to our grandparents or unusual to our parents seem equitable, indeed necessary to our generation,'’ Mr. Koch said. ‘’Many couples, both heterosexual and homosexual, can and do form long-term and committed personal relationships outside of the traditional institution of marriage.'’

The director of the Office of Municipal Labor Relations, Robert W. Linn, said it was expected that some 7,000 days of leave - the equivalent in productivity of losing about 30 full-time employees - might be taken each year among the 330,000 employees in mayoral agencies, the Board of Education and the Health and Hospitals Corporation.

‘’It is a half step down an entirely new avenue,'’ said Thomas B. Stoddard, executive director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represents the interests of gay people. ‘’The implications for the future will be nothing less than thunderous. This is a small measure around which a new area of the law can be built.'’

Seven municipalities already recognize domestic partners, Mr. Stoddard said, five of which are in California: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Berkeley, West Hollywood and Santa Cruz. The other two are Madison, Wis., and Takoma Park, Md. In addition, he said, Berkeley, West Hollywood and Santa Cruz extend health-care benefits to domestic partners. Candidates Support the Order

Because health coverage involves substantial and direct cash costs, Mr. Linn said, New York City would leave the matter to collective bargaining with its unions, the next round of which is to begin in the next six months.

Other candidates for the Democratic mayoral nomination supported the executive order. Borough President David N. Dinkins of Manhattan and City Comptroller Harrison J. Goldin were quick to note that they had already instituted a bereavement leave for unmarried couples in their own offices. And Richard Ravitch said he would ‘’certainly'’ continue the policy if he were elected.

Mr. Dinkins said he might even institute health coverage outside labor negotiations. ‘’Everything we think is good ought not necessarily be left to bargaining,'’ he said. ‘’If we think it’s good and fair, we ought to achieve it. But I have to cost it and I haven’t. And that’s important.'’

Ronald Lauder, a Republican candidate for mayor, said the order ‘’undermines one of society’s most essential institutions - marriage'’ and added that, while he was opposed to discrimination, ‘’to extend that family benefit to gay couples was unwarranted and inappropriate.'’

A spokesman for Rudolph W. Giuliani, the other Republican candidate, said he ‘’would like to explore what could be done'’ about bereavement leave, perhaps at the discretion of commissioners, but that he was also concerned about the financial impact of such a policy.

Source : query.nytimes.com

Mayor Edward I. Koch will take the first step this month toward establishing broader rights for city employees who live with a partner outside of marriage.

Mayor Edward I. Koch will take the first step this month toward establishing broader rights for city employees who live with a partner outside of marriage.

By executive order, the Mayor will change the city’s bereavement policy to give unmarried employees the same right as married employees to paid leave after the death of a partner, Mr. Koch said in an interview yesterday.

He said the city had not decided who would qualify as a domestic partner, although a written application would be required as well as proof that the cohabitation had existed for a minimum period - perhaps a year.

The Mayor’s executive order follows recent actions by a few other cities to adopt a more flexible definition of the family. And last week, in a decision that many rights groups hailed as groundbreaking, the New York Court of Appeals upheld a gay man’s right to inherit his deceased partner’s rent-controlled apartment. Not a ‘Gay Rights’ Matter

Mayor Koch said his action was intended to benefit a wide range of people. ‘’This has nothing to do with gay rights,'’ he said. ‘’The largest number of people eligible will be heterosexuals living together as couples but not married, elderly people living with companions, people who have a domestic relationship but not necessarily sexual relations.'’

By defining and legitimizing domestic partnerships, the city will open the question of whether nonmarried partners of city employees can receive the same health, life insurance and other benefits now reserved for spouses and relatives.

Mr. Koch said he felt that ‘’compassion and principle'’ dictated that such partnerships be treated the same as marriages, but he said that extending economic benefits to those partners could be decided only through collective bargaining with the public employee unions. He said that he would encourage extending those benefits to a wider group of people, but that the cost would have to be absorbed by other areas in labor contracts.

‘’Everyone has to understand that this will cost millions of dollars,'’ he said, ‘’and that there is a fixed amount of money for wages, pensions and other benefits.'’

Changing the bereavement policy would cost virtually nothing, Mr. Koch said. ‘’The cost is so de minimus,'’ he said, ‘’that for the sake of fairness and equity, it should be done.'’

Arthur S. Leonard, a New York Law School professor and member of the Family Diversity Coalition, an advocacy group that lobbied for such changes, said he was delighted by the Mayor’s decision, first announced two weeks ago on a gay cable television program and reported yesterday in The Daily News.

At a recent candidates forum held by gay-rights groups, all four candidates for the Democratic nomination in this year’s mayoral race said that in principle they were not opposed to changing city policy to recognize nonmarried domestic partnerships, Mr. Leonard said.

Mr. Koch said yesterday that his three opponents for the nomination had also backed the legalization of gay marriages. ‘’The other three capitulated,'’ he said, ‘’but me, I said no, I am for domestic partnership.'’

But the Mayor’s three opponents -Borough President David N. Dinkins of Manhattan, City Comptroller Harrison J. Goldin and Richard Ravitch, the former chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority - have never endorsed gay marriages, their spokesmen said yesterday. Mr. Leonard, who was present as all four candidates appeared separately at the forum, said that none had endorsed gay marriages, and that the question had not been formally put to any of them. Broader Legislation Prepared

The most immediate effect of Mr. Koch’s executive order, Mr. Leonard said, would be to redress a painful inequity. ‘’There are now city employees whose partners are dying of AIDS, heart attacks, whatever, and they are not entitled to days off to put their lives together,'’ he said.

Source : query.nytimes.com

American Airlines is extending employee benefits to domestic partners.

The move announced today by American, the nation’s second-largest airline, followed a similar move last week by United Airlines.

‘’More and more companies are offering these benefits,'’ said David Smith, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest gay and lesbian political organization.

American, a unit of the AMR Corporation, already had offered such benefits as travel discounts under a ‘’registered companion'’ program, but now will also offer additional benefits like life insurance and medical and dental coverage.

To qualify, an employee will have to prove joint residence and a financial interdependence with a partner.

The Chicago-based United, the nation’s largest airline, made its announcement last week. United had been ordered by a Federal judge in San Francisco to provide such ‘’soft benefits'’ as travel privileges, bereavement leave and medical leave to both same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partnerships.

The order was based on a city law requiring those doing business with the city to treat domestic partners the same as married couples.

Source : query.nytimes.com

The Supreme Court of Canada, in one of the most far-reaching homosexual-rights rulings anywhere, today struck down a heterosexual definition of the word ‘’spouse.'’

In an 8-to-1 decision, the court ruled that Ontario’s Family Law Act was unconstitutional in denying homosexuals the right to apply for alimony from each other.

‘’The Supreme Court has overturned centuries of social tradition,'’ said Darrel Reid, president of Focus on the Family Canada, which intervened in the case to argue against expanding gay rights.

The case involved two lesbians, identified only as M and H. Denied spousal support after separating from her partner, M asked the courts to strike down the provision in Ontario’s spousal law that limited the right to claim alimony to married or common-law heterosexual couples.

Supreme Court Justice Peter Cory, writing for the majority, said, ‘’The exclusion of same-sex partners from the benefits of'’ the act ‘’promotes the view that M, and individuals in same-sex relationships generally, are less worthy of recognition and protection.'’

The court, stressing that it was not changing ‘’traditional conceptions of marriage,'’ noted that the Ontario law had already expanded the definition of spousal support in allowing it to apply to heterosexuals in common-law relationships. But it said its decision ‘’may well affect many other statutes that rely on a similar definition of the word ’spouse.’ ‘’

Federal and provincial laws, including those governing adoption, marriage and taxes, contain hundreds of references to spouses.

In January, one gay-rights lobbying group began a challenge to 58 federal laws, and the federal Government has been quietly trying to introduce changes that would eliminate legal differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Martha McCarthy, M’s lawyer, praised Canada’s 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, on which the high court’s decision was based, and said the ruling was ‘’the first time that gays and lesbians can say that the charter’s promise of equality for them and for their relationships has been fulfilled.'’

Ms. McCarthy’s client had already settled out of court with H, but Ontario had continued the case.

Another intervener in the case, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, said that if ‘’spouse'’ is to cover all domestic partnerships, it becomes useless in addressing ‘’the unique needs of marriage and heterosexual spousal relationships.'’

The Supreme Court gave Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, six months to change its law. But Canada’s provinces and the federal Government are permitted under the Charter of Rights to invoke a clause to ignore the decision.

Ontario’s Premier, Mike Harris, indicated he would not fight the ruling. ‘’My sense is that I think across the country governments will comply,'’ he said on a radio show.

Source : query.nytimes.com

JOE NASSANEY was shocked when Carl Baccaro, his partner of 32 years, asked him if he would like to become his legal partner. New Jersey’s Domestic Partner Act was to take effect a few days later, which allowed gay and elderly couples a legal status short of marriage.

Mr. Baccaro, 60, a musical conductor and voice teacher, had always been the more conservative one in the relationship. Mr. Nassaney, 57, a data center manager, says now that perhaps he knew that the couple’s time was short.

They were in line at the clerk’s office in South Orange on July 10 when it opened at midnight to usher in the new law. They and 38 other couples became the state’s first domestic partners. The next night, some time after Mr. Nassaney went to bed, Mr. Baccaro had a devastating stroke. An ambulance took Mr. Baccaro to the hospital; Mr. Nassaney took their domestic partnership certificate with him.

‘’It gave me extraordinary control over what went on in the hospital,'’ Mr. Nassaney said. ‘’Everything had to go through me – just like we were husband and wife.'’

Besides hospital visitation rights and the authority to make medical decisions for incapacitated partners, the new law provides protection against discrimination in areas ranging from employment benefits and to family pool memberships, as well as certain exemptions from taxation.

Mr. Nassaney and Mr. Baccaro were among more than 1,907 couples –1,140 female and 754 male couples – who have registered their domestic partnerships since the law went into effect. That represents 11 percent of the more than 16,000 same-sex couples in the state who were listed in the 2000 census.

‘’I think the numbers reflect the spectrum of feeling in New Jersey,'’ said David Buckel, a lawyer with Lambda Legal who is representing seven same-sex couples suing the state for the right to marry. ‘’Some folks need to register, some folks are ambivalent and some folks are downright angry that they don’t have full marriage rights.'’

Chris Lodewyks, 54, a retired businessman, and his partner, Craig Hutchison, 53, a portfolio manager, of Pompton Lakes are one of the couples suing the state for the recognition of same-sex marriage.

‘’Domestic partnership is second-class citizenship, and I am not going to accept second-class citizenship,'’ Mr. Lodewyks said. The couple have been together for 33 years.

In 1997 the General Accounting Office identified 1,046 federal laws that affect married couples, that are not applicable to same-sex couples. Marriage is not necessarily an advantage in all those laws; some limit donations for spouses in political campaigns; others prohibit the hiring of spouses for conflict of interest reasons.

But many of the federal laws that mention marriage do so to extend medical or financial support to surviving spouses. Since the federal government does not recognize domestic partnership these benefits would not be available to same-sex couples registered in New Jersey.

Felice Londa, a lawyer, and Stacy Brodsky, a chiropractor, are a lesbian couple from Maplewood who are registered domestic partners. They appreciate the new rights they have as domestic partners, but noted its limitations recently when they boarded a ferry from Cape May to Lewes, Del., for a vacation at Dewey Beach. As they watched the Jersey shore fade into the distance, it dawned on them that their legal rights as domestic partners faded, too. Delaware does not recognize civil unions, domestic partnerships or same-sex marriages.

‘’Suddenly we realized that it would be like we were total strangers in Delaware,'’ Ms. Londa said. They would no longer have full visitation rights in a hospital should one of them become sick or injured.

‘’We would have to lie and say that we are sisters or cousins,'’ she said. If one of them became incapacitated, her partner would no longer have the legal authority as Mr. Nassaney had to make medical decisions for her and no amount of bluffing could change that.

For Mr. Nassaney, the need to use that authority came all too soon. Just seven days after the domestic partnership law took effect, Mr. Nassaney decided to take his partner off life support.

More : query.nytimes.com

City officials said today that they had reached tentative agreements with United Airlines and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco that will remove two major obstacles to a new ordinance requiring all city contractors to offer health and other benefits to the unmarried partners of their employees.

‘’We still have a lot of work left to do on the implementation of the ordinance,'’ said Susan Leal, a city Supervisor involved in the negotiations. ‘’But these were a couple of hurdles that we had to get over right away.'’

The ordinance, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors last November and is to take effect on June 1, was intended to force more than 8,000 companies, municipalities and social service agencies that do business with the City and County of San Francisco into line with the city’s benefits policy, adopted after a 1990 ballot initiative sponsored by gay and lesbian political groups.

Supporters of the ordinance insisted it would change principles more than practices; only the relatively small number of couples that are officially registered in San Francisco or the handful of other cities that recognize domestic partnerships would be able to demand benefits equivalent to those accorded married spouses.

Within weeks after its approval by the board and the Mayor, the ordinance ran into objections from multinational corporations, corner businesses, newspaper editorial writers and the Catholic Church.

Under one deal worked out after several weeks of sometimes acrimonious negotiations, United Airlines agreed to a two-year lease, rather than a 25-year one, for a new maintenance base and kitchen quarters at San Francisco International Airport, city officials said. United will be able to renew the contract for 23 more years if it is in compliance with the ordinance at the end of the two years.

A spokeswoman for the airline, Mary Jo Holland, said United was ‘’hopeful'’ that the Board of Supervisors would approve the settlement. City officials said they considered the terms, which they had offered to United more than a week earlier, a done deal.

The Archbishop of San Francisco, William J. Levada, had demanded an exemption from the ordinance for the archdiocese’s social-service agency, Catholic Charities, on the grounds that the measure constituted an endorsement of homosexuality in conflict with Church teachings.

But after a meeting on Thursday night, church and city officials agreed to hammer out a policy under which Catholic Charities would provide benefits to any ‘’legally domiciled member of the employee’s household'’ designated to receive them by the employee.

Source : query.nytimes.com

When future generations of Americans look back on the current era, they’ll puzzle over what it was about George W. Bush that made people imagine there was anything compassionate to his conservatism.

Having apparently lost all hope that he can use terrorism to scare voters into electing Republicans this November, the president has now begun raising the threat of gay marriage.

The moment the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a ruling on the subject this week, Mr. Bush began using every possible excuse to bring up ‘’activist'’ judges and gay weddings on the campaign trail. ‘’I mentioned his love for his family,'’ Mr. Bush said at a rally for a Republican Senate candidate in Michigan. ‘’He understands what I know, that marriage is a fundamental institution of our civilization. Yesterday in New Jersey we had another activist court issue a ruling ‘’

The court in New Jersey, for what it’s worth, was hardly activist. The State Legislature had given gay couples the ability to unite in domestic partnerships that gave them most, but not all, of the legal protections available to married heterosexuals. The court simply said that both kinds of partners deserved the same legal protection, and left it up to the lawmakers to figure out how to do it. Hardly a thunderbolt from the sky, but Mr. Bush took up the cause of protecting the ‘’sacred institution that is critical to the health of our society'’ as if a cadre of antifamily jurists had just abolished matrimony.

All this is, as everyone knows, just a show for rousing the base. If the last month has taught us anything about the Republican Party, it is that homophobia is campaign strategy, not conviction. Congressmen who trust their careers to gay staffers vote for laws to enshrine second-class citizenship for gays in the Constitution. Gay appointees and their partners are treated as married people at official ceremonies and social gatherings. Then whenever an election rolls around, the whole team pretends it’s on a mission to save America from gay marriage.

Mr. Bush and his faithful acolytes seem perfectly willing to stoke fears that create division and sorrow in a country that doesn’t need any more of either. The president has just a little more than two years left in office. You’d think that for once he’d want to consider devoting his time to making things better instead of worse.

More : query.nytimes.com

GOV. Ben Cayetano is pushing the Legislature to begin a discussion of emotional social issues such as domestic partnerships for same-sex couples, doctor-assisted death and medical use of marijuana.

Senate President Norman Mizuguchi and House Speaker Calvin Say want legislators to fix their attention on the economy. Mizuguchi says the Senate probably won’t get to the social issues this year and possibly not even next year.

It sounds like a conflict. but that’s not necessarily so. Cayetano is right that lawmakers must start a discussion of these issues to move them toward resolution. And legislative leaders are right that they don’t have to finish the discussion this year.

Cayetano knows the economy is the priority and must be addressed before all else. He hopes to make a reinvigorated economy the cornerstone of his legacy. But he also knows we’ll never reach consensus on the emotional social issues that so divide us until we start talking about them in a civil manner.

House and Senate leaders know they can’t duck the social issues forever. But they also know that legislators are easily distracted and that fringe issues could take over the session if leaders don’t keep control of the agenda.

So let’s start talking about the social issues and be prepared to act if a quick consensus miraculously emerges. But let’s also remember that domestic partnerships, doctor-assisted suicide and marijuana lack the urgency of the economy, education and civil service reform. If there’s no easy agreement, it’s reasonable to let the secondary issues wait for another year.

On same-sex marriage, voters were troubled that an issue affecting only a tiny minority of Hawaii residents – an issue not under serious consideration in any other state – suddenly rose to the top of our agenda and paralyzed the Legislature from dealing with far more important issues for years. Voters finally had to take matters into their own hands to put an end to it.

The same-sex marriage battle exposed inequities in our marriage laws that need to be corrected. If we take adoption and parental rights out of the equation, as the governor proposes, there are promising signs that reasonable people on both sides can find consensus.

But it doesn’t have to be this year – especially if the debate would be rancorous and distracting from the Legislature’s top priorities. To try to force the issue in the absence of clear agreement would be a slap in the face to voters who just turned down same-sex marriage by an overwhelming margin.

Physician-assisted death has the potential to be just as contentious. It has the same moral, religious, political and legal overtones as same-sex marriage and abortion. The fight could get ugly as interest groups representing doctors, religious organizations and the disabled lock into hard positions.

CAYETANO has sent the Legislature bills recommended by his blue-ribbon panel to legalize doctor-assisted suicide. That’s fine. The issue merits consideration. But before the Legislature devotes serious time to the matter, those advocating change must do their job of selling the public on the benefits of change they seek. Same-sex marriage ultimately failed because its advocates neglected to do that.

As same-sex marriage moved through the Legislature, we took the wrong turn at every junction. Physician-assisted death provides an opportunity to show that we’ve learned from our mistakes and can handle one of these emotional social issues the right way.

Source : starbulletin.com

Despite their state’s history of promoting gay rights, Californians have been split on same-sex marriage, a contrast that’s expected to become more pronounced because of two overlapping voter initiatives.

Believing that courts eventually will support the rights of gay couples to marry, opponents want voters to amend the state constitution to allow only heterosexual unions.

However, a rift among conservatives has led competing groups to promote two different bans. Both petitions would do away with rights associated with domestic partnerships and same-sex unions.

Conservatives worry the infighting could doom the initiatives, while gay-rights advocates say voters are unlikely to discard established domestic-partnership rights.

“There is obviously a rift in the family over which of the proposed amendments best protects marriage and protects the rights and benefits of marriage,” said Benjamin Lopez, a lobbyist for the Traditional Values Coalition who tried to unite the competing groups behind one measure earlier this year. “The situation right now is delicate.”

Voters agreed five years ago in a ballot initiative, Proposition 22, that marriage should be only between a man and a woman, but courts said the law violated gay couples’ civil rights.

Last week, the California Legislature became the nation’s first legislative body to approve a bill allowing same-sex marriages, although Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he would veto it.

In the upcoming ballot initiatives, a group called Vote Yes Marriage favors a detailed, multiparagraph amendment rescinding the marriagelike rights lawmakers granted domestic partners during the past five years while defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The other group, Protect Marriage, does it in one sentence: “A marriage between a man and a woman is the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.”

The sponsors have until January to gather 598,105 signatures to put the amendments on the June ballot.

Andrew Pugno, legal adviser to Protect Marriage, said that group wants to keep the wording simple. Backers of the longer Vote Yes Marriage version said that while the Protect Marriage initiative might keep the courts and the Legislature from bestowing marriage licenses on same-sex couples, it would not necessarily do away with domestic partnerships.

Although Proposition 22 passed with 61 percent of the vote five years ago, a recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that voters are evenly divided on whether gays should be allowed to marry. Other polls found a majority think same-sex couples deserve at least domestic-partner rights.

Gay-rights advocates are bracing for the likelihood that at least one of the initiatives will make the June ballot and the possibility that the second could be put before voters the following November.

“Ultimately, it wouldn’t surprise me if this is a way for two different groups to raise as much money as possible and then join forces,” said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the lobbying group Equality California.

Source : seattletimes.nwsource.com

THE Star-Bulletin headline summed it up well: “Legislature: all talk, no action.” It was a frustrating session because the most hotly debated bills, on same-sex marriage and auto insurance, died. Both issues are certain to be revived in future sessions, however. The same goes for abolition of the legislators’ “high three” pension privileges, a glaring inequity that has produced much public cynicism.

Explaining the demise of the auto insurance reform legislation, House Speaker Joe Souki commented, “This is the price of democracy. If this was a totalitarian system, the House would have prevailed, and we would have had a bill.” Yes, this is the price of democracy, but it is also the price of a bicameral system. With a two-chamber legislative body, these hangups frequently occur. The 1996 session strengthens the case for a one-house Legislature.

Sometimes a failure to enact legislation is preferable to success. The proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage would have been a regrettable refusal to recognize the right of homosexuals to equal treatment under the law.

As William Safire argues elsewhere on this page, “domestic partnerships” would have been a reasonable compromise. The proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage or domestic partnerships was deservedly defeated.

On auto insurance reform as well, no action was not entirely bad news. The attempt by the House, supported by Governor Cayetano, to abolish the no-fault system in favor of unlimited lawsuits, was a major mistake.

The proposal was made even worse by the plan to have employer-subsidized health-insurance policies cover auto accident injuries. This would have been an added financial burden on business, the last thing Hawaii needs.

It’s fortunate that the Senate stood firm in defense of its plan to strengthen no-fault. More lawsuits are not the solution to the high cost of auto insurance.

The Legislature’s refusal to sanction gambling or raise income or general excise taxes was also welcome.

One of the modest achievements was the establishment of a nonprofit corporation to provide workers’ compensation insurance. Workers’ comp is a huge cost item for business and relief is urgently needed. This bill may help but the Legislature must face up to the need for tougher reforms that the unions oppose.

Among other pluses were limited protection against lawsuits for beach accidents for the county governments, tougher penalties for selling the drug crystal methamphetamine or “ice, ” the approval of the land exchange with the Campbell Estate for the Kapolei campus of the University of Hawaii-West Oahu, and provision of more incentives for welfare recipients to get jobs.

A big minus was the weakening of the “sunshine law” to allow members of boards to meet privately. Sanctioning secret discussions of public business is a step backward.

more : starbulletin.com

DEBRA LOBEL, a lawyer, and Beverly Dashevsky, a retired teacher and a literacy volunteer, have been life partners since 1958. In their wills they name each other as beneficiaries. They jointly own a house and an office building, both in East Hampton. And Ms. Lobel said that in case of serious illness, their families have agreed that each woman would be the sole decision maker for the other.

Their deliberately interwoven finances were designed to secure rights they believe are theirs by virtue of their 44-year union but are not guaranteed by law to gay or lesbian couples, Ms. Lobel said. Now the Town of East Hampton has started a registry for domestic partnerships – gay and lesbian couples as well unmarried heterosexual couples – that offers the opportunity to formalize such relationships.

The law creating the registry does not create any benefit Ms. Lobel and Ms. Dashevsky have not already secured through careful financial and estate planning. Nor does it offer much more than a hope of enhanced rights in the future for other gay and lesbian couples. Nonetheless, Ms. Lobel and Ms. Dashevsky have vowed to be the first couple, gay or straight, to enter their names in the registry in about two weeks, just as soon as the law is filed with the state.

‘’As an attorney, I know of many other situations where, if there had been some sort of official registry, a lot of anger, hurt and frustration could have been avoided,'’ said Ms. Lobel, a member of the East End Gay Organization’s political action committee.

The town law says its purpose lies ‘’in strengthening and supporting all caring, committed and responsible family forms'’ and extending ‘’certain societal privileges and benefits currently enjoyed by members of a duly recognized marital unit.'’

Registrants, who must be 18 or older, are required to pay a $25 fee and sign an affidavit saying they ‘’contribute mutually to each other’s maintenance and support.'’ Either partner can terminate the partnership by filing a second form.

Ms. Lobel lobbied for and helped draft the domestic partnership law along with two other lawyers, Thomas Kirdahy, EEGO’s co-chairman, and Adam Grossman, the chairman of its political action committee.

When the law takes effect, East Hampton will be the first municipality in Suffolk County and the first township in New York State to permit gay, lesbian and unmarried heterosexual couples to register as domestic partners. Just a few cities already do: New York, Albany, Rochester and Ithaca, according to the Empire State Pride Agenda, a gay statewide lobbying organization.

Like New York City’s registry, East Hampton’s paves the way for a couple to share health and other insurance benefits, just as married couples do. While married couples generally share insurance as a matter of right, coverage for a gay partner often hinges on a couple’s being able to prove that a domestic partnership exists. And, of course, someone – usually the employer – has to pay for the coverage.

Partnership registries do not guarantee the same inheritance rights or tax benefits enjoyed by married couples, said John M. Czygier Jr., Suffolk’s Surrogate Court judge.

‘’This is not a panacea,'’ Judge Czygier said. ‘’A registry does not impact the ability to inherit because inheritance rights come from state law.'’

He and Ms. Lobel said that a meticulously crafted will, as well as other documentation of a longstanding relationship, may be needed when inheritance is an issue.

He said that the courts had yet to determine the significance of domestic partnerships in probate proceedings but that a registered partnership could be useful under contract law. For example, he said, it could help a surviving partner hold on to a house whose deed is in the name of the deceased partner but was bought with joint funds.

Despite the limitations, Ms. Lobel, Ms. Dashevsky and several other gay-rights advocates celebrated when the East Hampton Town Board voted 5 to 0 for the registry on Sept. 6. They cheered, sobbed unabashedly and hugged each other. Diana Weir, the town councilwoman who sponsored the resolution, cried so hard that she was unable to read the law into the official record, as required. A colleague stepped in for her.

Source : query.nytimes.com

As the debate over amending the Constitution to block same-sex marriage heats up, a few legal scholars are arguing that the wording of the one amendment to be introduced in Congress so far is too ambiguous to accomplish what the president and its sponsors say they intend.

In calling on Congress to pass an amendment for approval by the states, President Bush made it clear that he wanted an amendment that would block recognition of same-sex marriages but allow individual state legislatures to recognize quasi-marital same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships.

‘’The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage,'’ Mr. Bush said.

Determining whether the text of the proposed amendment would accomplish that, however, can require a close reading, to say the least. The amendment reads: ‘’Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.'’

The Alliance for Marriage, which oversaw the drafting of the text, and the Congressional sponsors say they chose to say no law ‘’shall be construed to require'’ to block courts from requiring that states or the federal government recognize marriages between people of the same sex. The amendment’s supporters also say that their text would still allow state legislatures to recognize quasi-marital same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships, following the example of Vermont.

But not everyone shares that view. Some conservative scholars who oppose gay unions and some gay scholars who oppose the amendment are arguing that it might effectively block any marital benefits for same-sex couples, no matter what name is used.

A handful of conservatives argue that the sentence defining marriage as heterosexual should preclude any provision of marital benefits to same-sex couples, no matter what the name. A few gay legal advocates contend that future courts might interpret the amendment to block enforcement of any laws conferring benefits on same-sex couples.

‘’Constitutions are interpreted over time,'’ said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a group opposed to the amendment. ‘’You don’t write a gamble like that into the Constitution.'’

Robert H. Bork, the conservative former judge and former Supreme Court nominee and a leading drafter of the amendment, called that argument ‘’preposterous.'’ He said that the text clearly restricted only courts, not legislatures. What is more, Mr. Bork said, the public debate over the amendment would determine how any court interpreted it. If voters approving the amendment believed it meant one thing, courts would be hard pressed to say it meant another.

Matt Daniels, a lawyer who founded the Alliance for Marriage and who is another drafter of the amendment, said the semantic debate was beside the point. ‘’We, the group that drafted the text and introduced it into the House and Senate,'’ Mr. Daniels said, ‘’are fully open to minor changes to the wording to make it clear, explicit and unambiguous.'’

Source : query.nytimes.com

Same-sex domestic partners are not entitled to health benefits from public universities or local and state governments under the State Constitution’s two-year-old marriage amendment, the Michigan Court of Appeals said in a ruling released Friday.

In a reversal of a lower court ruling, a three-judge panel found that the amendment, which bans same-sex marriage, also prohibited government agencies from recognizing ‘’similar unions'’ like domestic partnerships for any purposes.

‘’By officially recognizing a same-sex union through the vehicle of a domestic partnership agreement, public employers give same-sex domestic couples similar status to that of married couples,'’ the judges wrote.

Such action, they added, would ‘’run directly afoul of the plain language of the amendment.'’

The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a supporting brief in the case, expressed ‘’deep disappointment'’ with the decision and said it would appeal to the State Supreme Court.

The issue of benefits became contentious when Michigan voters passed the marriage amendment in November 2004 because several public employers, including universities and local governments, had policies or agreements in place that extended health care to same-sex domestic partners of employees.

The formal case began in 2005 when National Pride at Work Inc., a gay advocacy group based in Washington, and a number of individuals sought to settle the question about benefits through the court.

They sought a declaratory judgment that the amendment did not prohibit public employers from conferring health benefits to employees’ same-sex domestic partners.

Among their arguments was that a denial of benefits would violate the state’s equal- protection clause. They also said that proponents of the marriage amendment had made assurances that its passage would not affect benefits to same-sex partners.

A trial court in Ingham County granted the judgment in 2005, saying that the extension of benefits in the context of employment contracts did not come close to the legal status of marriage in society.

But Mike Cox, the Michigan attorney general, asked for a stay of the ruling and reconsideration, which was granted.

The new ruling was dated Thursday but released on Friday.

Deborah A. Labelle, a lawyer for the A.C.L.U. of Michigan, said in a statement, ‘’After today’s decision, many men and women in Michigan with children now stand to lose their benefits.'’

Source : query.nytimes.com

A state commission in Hawaii will recommend to the Legislature this week that it grant marriage rights and responsibilities to couples of the same sex.

Coming from a panel appointed by the Governor, the recommendation is another step in a legal contest over marriage in Hawaii that began in 1993, when the State Supreme Court opened the door to same-sex unions.

The report, which also calls for the recognition of domestic partnerships, will provide ammunition for advocates of same-sex marriage.

“It is historical and unprecedented,” said Daniel R. Foley, a lawyer for the three couples who brought the case decided by the State Supreme Court.

But no one expects the report to sway the Legislature, which last year banned same-sex marriages. It acted after the Supreme Court had found that the denial of marriage licenses to gay couples would be unconstitutional unless the state demonstrated a compelling interest for doing so.

It sent the case back to a lower court, which postponed its hearing to await the recommendations of the Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law, whose members were appointed by Gov. Benjamin J. Cayetano, a Democrat.

On Friday, by a 5-to-2 vote, the commission concluded that the denial of a marriage license to two men or two women deprived the applicants of important legal and economic benefits on the basis of their sex.

Among those benefits are the right to have joint parental custody, obtain insurance and health benefits, file joint tax returns, receive alimony and child support, inherit property automatically and visit a spouse or child in a hospital.

“This is an equal-protection question, and they should not be denied this right on the basis of their gender,” said Thomas P. Gill, the commission chairman. He is a lawyer, a former Democratic member of Congress and a former lieutenant governor who joined the American Civil Liberties Union in the 1940’s.

About gay couples who sought civil recognition for their unions, Mr. Gill said: “These are people. We have a lot of them. And they have rights. Let’s keep this an open society.”

Another commission member, Bob Stauffer, a writer and lecturer at the University of Hawaii, said, “I hope, I pray we’ll see the end of this apartheid against our gay and lesbian citizens.”

The commission said the state had not demonstrated a compelling interest in withholding marriage licenses.

“The opposition can’t come up with a compelling state interest other than Leviticus 18,” Mr. Gill said. (Verse 22 of that chapter declares, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.")

“Procreation is used as an argument,” Mr. Gill continued, “but interestingly enough, no heterosexual couples are asked that question. If two 75-year-olds walk in for a marriage license, they don’t say, ‘What the hell are you doing here?’ ”

Mr. Gill was in the House of Representatives when the civil rights bill of 1964 was debated. “Many of the arguments I’m hearing now sound very much like the arguments we heard in the early 60’s – ‘blacks are inferior,’ et cetera,” he said.

For opponents of the recommendation, the issue is not civil rights but the fabric of society itself, which they see being torn apart by the destruction of the traditional family.

“Heterosexual and homosexual coupling are not equivalent,” said Lloyd James Hochberg Jr., a commission member who voted against the recommendation. He is a former president of the Hawaii office of the Rutherford Institute, a conservative legal group specializing in religious liberties cases.

“Since homosexuality is an emotional disturbance, according to many psychologists,” Mr. Hochberg said, “why would we want to take a pathological condition and make it the equivalent of heterosexual marriage as a goal that society is teaching children? Once homosexual marriage or domestic partnership is permitted, the schools are going to have to teach that it’s equivalent”

The staff lawyer for the commission, Pamela Bell Martin, said the report would be sent to legislative leaders this week.

Source : query.nytimes.com

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue has sent out a series of letters to Collectors explaining the nature and scope of the excess profits tax. As a part of the instructions to Collectors special supposititious cases are given.

Source : query.nytimes.com

One of the most remarkable institutions in post-apartheid South Africa is the Constitutional Court, created to enforce the rules of the new democracy. In its courtroom the other day there was an argument that threw dramatic light on the way this country, and the world, has changed.

The case was this. South African immigration law provides that a foreign ‘’spouse'’ of someone here may be admitted as an immigrant. Gay and lesbian individuals and organizations challenged the law’s constitutionality, arguing that it discriminated against same-sex couples who were committed partners but could not legally marry.

The new South African Constitution includes a sweeping Bill of Rights. It forbids discrimination on grounds, among others, of race, gender, religion, ‘’marital status'’ or ‘’sexual orientation.'’

Arguing for the Government, Essop Patel urged the court to uphold the immigration law despite those constitutional guarantees. He said the concept of sovereignty gave Parliament plenary power over immigration.

‘’Can the immigration law be inconsistent with the Constitution?'’ the court’s president, Arthur Chaskalson, asked. Mr. Patel struggled to escape that and similar questions but finally answered, ‘’No.'’

If there was discrimination, Mr. Patel said, it was allowable as a way for the state to protect the institution of the family. ‘’Aren’t you protecting stereotypes,'’ Justice Laurie Ackermann asked, of what sexual relations and family should be?

‘’What is really needed in this country,'’ Mr. Patel said, ‘’is a law recognizing domestic partnerships.'’ He asked the court to give Parliament time to act. The judges asked how much time. He could not say.

Counsel for those challenging the law, Wim Trengove, was asked by the judges what they should do if they agreed with him that the law was unconstitutionally discriminatory. Should they strike down the benefit for alien spouses? Or read into the statute a like advantage for same-sex partners? What about unmarried heterosexual couples?

Mr. Trengove said the court should confine itself to this complaint and read into the law a benefit for homosexual life partners. Members of the court expressed concern that that might put them in too legislative a role.

One notable aspect of the argument was the understanding, respectful view that everyone took of homosexuality. South African society, black and white, was in the past deeply homophobic. But even the Government’s lawyer spoke critically of ‘’homophobia.'’ And an editorial about the case in a conservative newspaper, The Citizen, mocked objections to same-sex relationships and even marriages.

Even more striking – profoundly so – was the commitment of the judges and lawyers to the very process of constitutional law. For not long ago the idea that a South African government would submit itself to the decisions of a court on issues of civil rights and liberties was unimaginable.

Until 1994 South Africa had no written constitution. Judges were bound to enforce whatever Parliament enacted. And the apartheid Government turned law into a mechanism of oppression.

So the scene in that courtroom was a world turned upside-down. Everyone accepted the principle of judicial review. Everyone was comfortable with the idea that judges should have the last word on what the Government can and cannot do.

More : query.nytimes.com

An influential group of lawyers and judges has recommended sweeping changes in family law that would increase alimony and property rights for many divorced women, while extending such rights for the first time to many cohabiting domestic partners, both heterosexual and gay.

The proposals, from the American Law Institute, seek to update family law to reflect changes in society over the last 30 years. One conclusion, for example, is that if a spouse has committed adultery, it should not affect a judge’s decision about alimony or marital property.

The findings are likely to have a major impact, given the prestige of the institute, a private organization of eminent lawyers, judges and legal scholars that has had immense influence on the development of American law since the group was founded in 1923.

The institute’s recommendations on commercial law, torts, contracts, criminal law and other topics have been adopted by many states.

Family law, by and large, is set by the states. Already the proposals, circulated among state officials in recent weeks, have touched off a furor among conservatives, who contend that they are biased against marriage.

The American Law Institute has devoted 10 years to drafting the recommendations, which seek to make family law more predictable and consistent.

Judges now have vast discretion in divorce proceedings, so decisions on alimony, child custody and the division of property vary widely by state, and even among judges in the same state.

The report says that a parent’s sexual orientation should not be a factor in decisions on child custody, and that domestic partnerships should be treated like marriage in many important respects.

In handling custody disputes, some judges still assume that gays are unfit to be parents. But the American Law Institute declares, ‘’Homosexual conduct, like heterosexual extramarital conduct, should be disregarded unless shown to be harmful to an individual child.'’ Judges, it says, should not be swayed by stereotypes or ‘’prejudicial attitudes.'’

One of the critics, Lynn D. Wardle, a law professor at Brigham Young University, described the report as a radical effort to equalize the legal status of marriage and domestic partnerships involving unmarried people of the same or opposite sex.

The proposals ‘’could undermine the institution of marriage and reflect an ideological bias against family relations based on marriage,'’ Mr. Wardle said.

The recommendations, developed after an exhaustive review of court cases and consultations with many experts, are addressed to judges, state legislators and other state officials.

In general, the institute said, ‘’domestic partners are two persons of the same or opposite sex, not married to one another, who for a significant period of time share a primary residence and a life together as a couple.'’

At the end of an intimate relationship, the report said, ‘’a domestic partner is entitled to compensatory payments'’ similar to alimony ‘’on the same basis as a spouse.'’

This is a novel concept. Few American courts have awarded alimony to domestic partners.

Likewise, the report said, when domestic partners split up, their property should be divided in the same way a divorce court would divide the property of a husband and wife.

Ira Mark Ellman, a law professor at Arizona State University who was a principal author and editor of the report, said: ‘’Our purpose was to adapt family law to changes in the family as an institution. The law has to take account of social changes driving the family.'’

Grace Ganz Blumberg, a co-author of the report, said the recommendations indicated that ‘’we were more willing to redistribute income and wealth'’ than many courts and state legislatures have been.

As a result, said Ms. Blumberg, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, child support obligations would be higher than under current law when a parent having custody of a child earns substantially less than the other parent.

The institute does not encourage domestic partnership or cohabitation as an alternative to marriage, but says that domestic partners, like spouses, incur economic obligations to each other when they live together for any significant time.

Source : query.nytimes.com

Three Democratic presidential candidates who were chastised by the N.A.A.C.P. for skipping the group’s political forum in Miami on Monday upended their schedules today to fly south and make elaborate apologies. Earlier this week, all the candidates were summoned to a forum before gay leaders, where they were pressed to endorse gay marriage.

These two events illustrated what has emerged as one of the most critical and, for some Democrats, perplexing differences between the modern-day Democratic and Republican Parties: How they accommodate constituencies that are at the base of their political foundation but endorse views that are not always popular with the broader electorate.

President Bush has proved to be highly effective in his dealing with groups on the right. His appearances as candidate and as president before, say, the Christian Coalition, were far and few between. But the Democrats are finding themselves increasingly commandeered before groups that tend to highlight the very positions the White House would like highlighted, like the support of gay groups. That is taking place despite the efforts of Democratic Party leaders to protect the candidates from this situation.

‘’When is the last time you saw George Bush show up before the N.R.A.?'’ James Carville, who was Bill Clinton’s campaign manager in 1992, said today, referring to the National Rifle Association. (The answer is never.)

‘’The N.R.A. are very savvy politically,'’ Mr. Carville said. ‘’They understand what it is to win an election. They don’t make Republican presidential candidates go there and hold assault weapons up in the air.'’

An important explanation is that Mr. Bush can afford to be less accommodating to various constituencies. After all, he is the incumbent – and faces no primary competition. If he does bow to the N.R.A., where else would those voters turn?

The Democrats are in no such position. Some Democrats said they had winced at the image today of Representative Richard A. Gephardt, Representative Dennis J. Kucinich and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman racing to Miami to apologize profusely after they had been scolded by the N.A.A.C.P. president for missing the organization’s forum, one of close to 100 such meetings that various constituencies have tried to press on the presidential calendar. They suggested it reinforced precisely the image Democrats had been trying to erase: of caving in to pressure from a constituency group.

‘’Leadership also means being able to admit you’re wrong,'’ Mr. Lieberman, who delayed a trip to Iowa to go to Miami, told the group. ‘’I was wrong. I regret it and I apologize for it.'’

Mr. Kucinich said: ‘’I'm very sorry I wasn’t able to be here. Amazing grace, how sweet it is, once was lost, now I’m found.'’

The events in Miami came the same week when the candidates were pressed at a forum sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization, to take a stand on gay marriage and domestic partnerships. Their very first joint appearance was before Naral Pro-Choice America, where they were all pressed to promise to filibuster any nominations of judges who did not support abortion rights.

Kucinich, Gephardt and Lieberman aides said the candidates were doing nothing more than demonstrating their respect for one of the nation’s premier organizations. They scoffed at the notion that it might undercut them before a larger political audience.

Republicans could hardly be more pleased at the course of events.

‘’It’s a huge problem for them,'’ said Ed Gillespie, the incoming chairman of the Republican National Committee. ‘’It keeps pulling their nominee further and further left. It’s a contest of which one of them can bow the furthest.'’

To an extent, what is going on reflects fundamental differences in the parties. The Democrats have always been a mash of constituencies who have never been shy about pressing their views in public.

It is particularly difficult this year, when the Democrats are out of power and nine candidates are competing for support from various wings of the party, all of which are enjoying their sudden clout.

Source : query.nytimes.com

Nuclear Waste Figures Rise
The government has concluded that the amount of radioactive material released into the soil during 40 years of weapons manufacturing was 10 times larger than thought. PAGE A13

Carter Quits Baptist Group
Former President Jimmy Carter is severing ties to the Southern Baptist Convention, saying that parts of its ‘’increasingly rigid'’ doctrine violate the premises of his faith. PAGE A9

Gay Rights Vote in Nebraska
A proposed amendment to the state Constitution in Nebraska would ban gay marriages and declare same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships invalid. PAGE A9

Big Novels on Campus
The campus novel of the 1950’s has been replaced by a darker, rougher and more tragic type of book. But why? ARTS & IDEAS, PAGE B9

Source : query.nytimes.com

Six students were arrested last week at the University of California at Irvine in a demonstration protesting Chancellor Jack W. Peltason’s refusal to permit gay and lesbian couples to live in family dormitories. The demonstrators blocked an entrance to the administration building.

Six students were arrested last week at the University of California at Irvine in a demonstration protesting Chancellor Jack W. Peltason’s refusal to permit gay and lesbian couples to live in family dormitories. The demonstrators blocked an entrance to the administration building.

About 100 students blocked a door after a noon rally, but most left after two warnings from the campus police. The six students who were arrested linked arms in front of the door and, after a third warning, were handcuffed and driven to the campus police station. They were charged with blocking the doorway and failing to disperse, both misdemeanors. They are to appear in court April 7. Before the crowd converged on the entrance, Melissa Soto, one of the protest organizers, said the blockade was symbolic of nontraditional couples being ‘’locked out'’ of campus housing.

‘’With this civil disobedience, we are forcing people to look at the issue,'’ Ms. Soto, a senior from Newport Beach, Calif., majoring in women’s study, told the onlookers.

‘Human Rights Now!’

Hundreds of students congregated around the administration building, holding signs protesting what the students called discriminatory university housing rules. Many chanted ‘’Human rights now!'’ and sang gospel songs while the police made the six arrests.

‘’This is the most right thing I’ve done,'’ Donald Ruth, a senior from Baldwin Park, Calif., majoring in psychology, said before his arrest. ‘’We will not tolerate this kind of discrimination at U.C.I. any longer.'’

Students and administrators said the rally was so planned, the police already knew whom they were going to arrest, and had finished most of the paperwork before the demonstration. The demonstrators knew when the police would begin making arrests, and left exactly 10 minutes for ‘’the media to record the rally,'’ said Judith Olson, a graduate student from Anaheim majoring in English and one of the protest organizers.

Several students appeared shaken and teary-eyed as they were escorted from the administration building.

Protest Followed Ultimatum

‘’I'm amazed that I had to get arrested for people to notice my cause,'’ Napoleon Lustre, a senior from Manila majoring in philosophy, said as he was driven away in a police van.

The protest followed an ultimatum last month to Mr. Peltason from a student group called the Shantytown Committee. The group demanded that the university recognize gay domestic partnerships, and that it hire openly homosexual teachers.

Unless its demands were met, the group said, it would stage demonstrations and rebuild a cardboard shantytown dismantled after a protest last month.

The Chancellor responsed to the ultimatum by pledging support for the recognition of domestic partnerships, but added that his hands were tied by state laws.'’The only nonstudents who may live in family housing are legal spouses and dependent children,'’ he said.

A dozen members of the committee rebuilt the shantytown on Monday, two days before the protest.

‘’You must choose between justice and university policy,'’ the committee said. ‘’You can’t be committed to working with the campus community to insure that there is a hospitable environment while supporting policies explicitly inhospitable to nontraditional families.'’

Source : query.nytimes.com

In what is apparently the first Federal lawsuit of its kind, the surviving lesbian partner of a deceased A.T.&T. employee has charged the company with discrimination for refusing to pay her the same death benefits it would have paid to a husband.

In what is apparently the first Federal lawsuit of its kind, the surviving lesbian partner of a deceased A.T.&T. employee has charged the company with discrimination for refusing to pay her the same death benefits it would have paid to a husband.

Sandra Rovira, who filed the suit, says her life with Marjorie Forlini, an A.T.&T. manager who died of cancer two years ago, was as much a marriage as any heterosexual union. The women had even formalized their relationship in a 1977 ceremony for relatives and friends, and they exchanged rings and vows.

‘’Margie and I bought a house together and raised my kids together, and when she was sick, I washed her, I went to the doctors with her, I prayed with her,'’ said Ms. Rovira, 42 years old, of New Rochelle, N.Y., who was married before she met Ms. Forlini. ‘’She died in my arms. But when I called A.T.&T., they treated me as if I was nothing and our whole relationship was nothing. It was so humiliating. We were a family like any other family, and we deserved to be treated like one.'’

‘Someone Who’s Hurting’

A.T.&T. says its benefits are for legal spouses only, and since the law does not recognize homosexual unions, it does not either. ‘’We recognize that this is someone who’s hurting, but this was not a legally protected marriage,'’ said Maureen Lynch, an A.T.&T. spokeswoman.

With more homosexual couples living openly in long-term relationships, the question of what constitutes a family is becoming a pressing one -for the courts and for employers, whose benefits policies are coming under attack.

Over the last five years, many cities have recognized ‘’domestic partnerships'’ for some limited purposes. And many other efforts to have the benefits of marriage extended to domestic partners are under way, in legislatures and in the courts.

The changing status of domestic partnerships also affects unmarried heterosexual couples, who face similar problems in obtaining health insurance and death benefits. But unmarried heterosexual couples have the option of getting married.

‘’I think there will be broader recognition of domestic partnerships in the next five years, at least in large cities,'’ said Nan Hunter, a professor at Brooklyn Law School and former director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. ‘’The law is not very well developed yet, but I expect that there will be more cases in a variety of contexts, asserting that where a nontraditional couple’s relationship functions as a marriage, it should be treated as a marriage.'’

Issues to Be Settled

But even for those sympathetic to the concept, nettlesome questions remain. For while marriage is a clearly defined status, there is no consensus about what constitutes a domestic partnership. Do the partners have to live together? And, if so, for how long? Must they contract to be responsible for eachother’s support? Or is a simple affirmation of a committed relationship enough? And should there be a formal process for dissolving the partnership?

The question of what constitutes a family comes up in many areas, including housing rights and sick leave plans:

* In 1989, New York’s highest court ruled that a gay couple was legally considered a family under New York City’s rent control laws. At the same time, the city board of education is being sued by gay teachers seeking health insurance for their domestic partners.

* Municipal employees in several cities, including Los Angeles, Madison, Wis., and Berkeley, Calif., are entitled to sick leave to care for a domestic partner, or bereavement leave to attend the partner’s funeral. A law with similar provisions was adopted, then overturned by a referendum, in San Francisco, and will soon be back on the ballot. And in Seattle, a law was passed giving benefits to city employees’ partners, but it now faces an active repeal initiative.

* A few unions and municipalities, and a handful of private employers, including the American Psychological Association, The Village Voice and Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc., the Vermont-based ice cream company, offer health insurance to the domestic partners of their employees or members. But the Internal Revenue Service recently ruled that the cost of insurance premiums is taxable income for the domestic partner.

* Several places, including West Hollywood, Calif., Ithaca, N.Y., and Madison, allow all residents, not just municipal employees, to register domestic partnerships with the municipal clerks. Because private employers are not compelled by law to offer benefits to domestic partners, registering might not result in any tangible benefits, but it might help to establish the right to family membership rates at the local Y, or to visiting privileges when one partner is hospitalized.

Source : query.nytimes.com

To some, Showtime’s new series ‘’Queer as Folk,'’ a drama about gay and lesbian life, signals that on TV at least, gays have been accepted. The show, which includes vivid scenes of gay intimate life, is at the R-rated edge of a more mainstream trend that has produced at least a dozen gay characters on network TV shows this year. But while open-mindedness spreads into prime-time and major network entertainment, it seems that when it comes to real life, the American people are not so accepting.

This election, voters across the country sent a message rejecting state measures protecting gay rights and enacting legislation thwarting gays’ civil rights.

In Nebraska, an initiative amending the state constitution to bar the recognition of gay marriage and domestic partnerships passed by a wide margin. In Nevada, a voter initiative barring the recognition of gay marriage also passed easily. In Maine, a measure that would have made it illegal to discriminate against gays and lesbians in housing, employment and other spheres was narrowly defeated. In Oregon, a measure that would have denied state funds to schools teaching anything that sanctioned homosexuality was barely rejected.

Even in Vermont, where last year the Legislature enacted the nation’s first law granting same-sex couples many of the benefits and protections of marriage, Republicans tapped into a virulent backlash. Running in opposition to the law, they added more than a dozen seats in the state House of Representatives, overturning a Democratic majority. And Howard Dean, the popular Democratic governor who had signed the civil union law, prevailed only after a tough campaign in which the law was a central issue.

The critical and commercial success of shows like ‘’Will & Grace'’ and ‘’Friends,'’ which feature gay characters, raises the question: Why are so many Americans willing to watch gay characters on TV but unwilling to support gay rights? This is a paradox we should confront before we settle down to enjoy the next gay-friendly sitcom.

It’s tempting to conclude that entertainment paves the way for social change. But in fact, pop culture can stiffen conservative resolve, as it did in the 20’s, when evangelists reacted with moralistic fervor to the loosening social mores of the Jazz Age, or in the 60’s, when Richard Nixon won votes by scolding the counterculture. Something similar is happening with the new acceptance of gays on television: The more they are portrayed on screen as understandable human beings, the more threatening they seem off-screen.

Yet even as pop culture provokes this ambivalent response, it blunts the reality of oppression. If sitcoms show gays leading happy lives, why, some may ask, do they need protection against discrimination? Similar cinematic illusions once allowed many people to believe that African-Americans were content to be servants and that strong-minded women wanted nothing more than to decorate their menfolk’s lives.

The worst thing about this sort of fantasy is its effect on the victims of discrimination. Sitcom liberation has heightened the belief among many gays that activism isn’t necessary anymore. If you’re featured on ‘’Friends,'’ you must be free.

Television has come a long way since the backlash against ‘’Ellen'’ after Ellen DeGeneres came out as a lesbian. With the airing of Showtime’s ‘’Queer as Folk'’ we are moving into uncharted territory, but no one – whether supportive about gay rights or not – should confuse the fantasy tolerance of television with a culture in which gays are treated as equal citizens.

Source : query.nytimes.com

Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani proposed legislation yesterday that would require the city’s government to treat unmarried couples the same as those who are married, allowing them to continue as tenants in apartments leased to their partners and insuring their rights to be buried together in a city-owned cemetery.

The Mayor sent the proposal late yesterday afternoon to the City Council, where the measure will be sponsored by Peter F. Vallone, the council’s Speaker. With Mr. Vallone’s support, the proposal is virtually certain to pass.

Mr. Giuliani’s proposal, which fulfills a campaign promise he made to gay rights advocates last year, would give New York City one of the nation’s broadest policies regarding domestic partnerships.

The proposal, which would apply to heterosexual and homosexual domestic partnerships registered with the City Clerk, would enshrine into city law the initiatives of the Koch and Dinkins administrations relating to domestic partners, such as granting bereavement leave for city employees and visitation rights in city-owned hospitals.

It would also obligate the city to give registered domestic partners the same benefits as spouses under the city’s future collective bargaining agreements and would allow the Mayor to provide ‘’Good Samaritan'’ awards to the domestic partners of uniformed city employees who are killed in the line of duty.

One gay-rights organization said that the law would provide greater recognition of the emotional and practical import of same-sex relationships.

‘’It would be a psychological and emotional affirmation of our relationships,'’ said Matt Foreman, the director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, a gay-rights organization that had worked with the Giuliani administration in drafting the language of the legislation.

The Mayor has already quietly begun to change the rules and regulations of city agencies to insure equal treatment for registered domestic partners. For example, the partners of city employees will have the right to be buried with them in the city-owned Canarsie Cemetery – a right previously given only to spouses. And, like spouses, registered partners will also be able to represent their companions in challenging tax bills.

The sweeping proposals come at a time when Mr. Giuliani is trying to raise his profile as a potential Republican candidate for higher office. In recent weeks he has traveled to Michigan, New Mexico and Arizona to speak to rock-solid Republicans about the strides he has made in reducing crime and cutting budgets – but not about his efforts on behalf of gays and lesbians in New York City.

And yesterday, several Republican leaders around the country said they were baffled by his proposal. A few said that it reinforced the perception that the Mayor is too liberal for the generally conservative Republicans who participate in the party’s presidential primaries.

‘’You ask the average Republican on the street who would sponsor that kind of bill, and 99 percent would say a Democrat,'’ said Chris Baker, the executive director of the Colorado Republican Party. ‘’For lack of a better term, it’s a very Northeastern Republican bill,'’ he added. ‘’Imagine him trying to campaign on that kind of legislation down in Alabama. It won’t work.'’

Randy Mastro, the Deputy Mayor for operations, declined to discuss the national political implications of the proposal. But he emphasized that the measure would also benefit heterosexual couples.

According to city statistics, of the 8,700 unmarried couples that have registered with the City Clerk’s office since 1992, more than 55 percent are heterosexual.

Mr. Mastro said that in submitting the proposal, Mr. Giuliani was merely honoring a commitment he made to the Pride Agenda and other gay-rights organizations to fight for legislation that would insure equal treatment by the city of registered domestic partners. That commitment came in mid-October, three weeks before his re-election.

‘’What we have done is propose legislation tailored to address those issues and to provide the same rights, obligations and benefits to registered domestic partners under the local law as those provided to spouses,'’ Mr. Mastro said. ‘’The Mayor believed that the executive orders worked well, and that it was appropriate to memorialize the letter and spirit of those into local law.'’

Source : query.nytimes.com

A gay rights group that won a Massachusetts case legalizing gay marriage announced a similar suit in Connecticut on Wednesday, expanding its mission into a state its lead lawyer declared ripe to confront the issue.

‘’It’s about treating people fairly,'’ said Mary L. Bonauto, a lawyer and the civil rights director for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, a New England group that was the lead agency in the Massachusetts suit and in an earlier suit in Vermont that led to the nation’s first civil unions between gay couples. ‘’And from everything we see, Connecticut’s getting ready for that.'’

Ms. Bonauto, standing in a Hartford hotel among six of the seven Connecticut couples who are plaintiffs in the suit, cited a string of legislative moves in Connecticut that have expanded rights and protections for same-sex couples, including, in 2000, a law making it easier for them to adopt children.

‘’This legislature is very educated about the issues,'’ she said, ‘’but they haven’t ended this discrimination.'’

She added: ‘’The issue here is just ripe. The discussion is already happening.'’

The suit was filed in State Superior Court in New Haven after the seven couples sought and were denied marriage licenses in Madison, a quaint coastal town that Ms. Bonauto said was selected for logistical and symbolic reasons, largely because it is where many couples choose to wed.

The state said it would fight the suit.

‘’Several statutes and court decisions indicate clearly that the General Assembly has authorized a marriage relationship only between a man and a woman,'’ Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said in a two-paragraph statement.

Polls show that residents of Connecticut, a state generally considered to be liberal on social issues, are evenly split on the question of a state law legalizing gay marriage. But they show support for some form of legal recognition for gay couples. In his statement, Mr. Blumenthal, a popular Democrat who is considered a strong contender for governor in 2006 if he chooses to run, used language suggesting that his defense against the suit would not be a personal crusade against gay rights.

‘’My office has a duty to defend our statutes against constitutional challenges – as we will do against the legal action filed today,'’ he said.

In May, Mr. Blumenthal issued a delicately worded ruling saying same-sex Connecticut couples could not marry in the state. But it stopped short of saying they would not be legally recognized at home if they married elsewhere.

The suit filed on Wednesday adds a new front for gay rights advocates in the state. For years, groups typically sought help through the Democrat-dominated General Assembly, and often received it, at least in doses. The legislature could still confront the gay marriage issue before state courts do so conclusively. Ms. Bonauto said it could take as long as three years for the Connecticut suit to make its way through the courts.

An effort to pass legislation in favor of domestic partnerships failed in committee in 2003, but so did a measure to define marriage as between a man and a woman. This year, in the wake of the Massachusetts decision, gay marriage advocates and supportive lawmakers did not pursue legislation.

‘’Public opinion is changing this topic so fast that it’s way ahead of where the politicians are,'’ said State Representative Michael P. Lawlor, a Democrat from East Haven who is the House chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Lawlor, who pushed for legal recognition in 2003, said he expects to do so again when the legislature convenes in January. He said he thought the suit filed on Wednesday would ultimately prevail.

‘’I think it’ll win, but it’s like two or three years of legal agony,'’ he said. ‘’It would be much quicker for the legislature to do what Massachusetts has already done, which is let same-sex couples get married.'’

Another state lawmaker, Representative Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., a Republican from Norwalk who is the deputy House minority leader, said he expected a lawsuit after gay rights advocates declined to push for legislation this year. Mr. Cafero said he thought the legislature was moving toward some form of legal recognition for gay couples, though he opposes gay marriage.

Source : query.nytimes.com

In her piping soprano, 10-year-old Courtney Dozetos told hundreds of Vermonters crammed into the state House here late Tuesday night: ‘’It would make me feel special and good if my moms could get married. I don’t and probably never will understand why they can’t.'’

Linda Pastelnick, representing the opposite side, quoted a verse from Leviticus calling sex between men ‘’an abomination'’ and argued, ‘’God made Adam and Eve, he didn’t make Adam and Steve.'’

Henry Ilsley probably summed up the situation best, saying, ‘’It seems we’re a state divided.'’

Six weeks after the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that gay couples deserved the same rights and benefits as heterosexual spouses and must be granted them, Vermont is indeed a state divided, even polarized, as it takes its new position at the center of the country’s long-running debate over gay marriage.

It is grappling hard with the court ruling in its news media, in its lunch-counter talk and in its legislature, where committee members are hoping to come up with at least the beginnings of a bill on same-sex couples this month. And as it grapples, it is finding that what had seemed at first obvious middle ground – a domestic partnership system that would offer all the benefits of marriage, like insurance and inheritance rights, without the title – has few backers at this point.

In its Dec. 20 ruling, the court left it up to the legislature to find a remedy for discrimination against gay couples. It set no deadline for the new law but retained the right to revisit the issue if the unconstitutional discrimination did not end.

Immediately after the ruling, Gov. Howard Dean and others expressed their support for domestic partnership as a compromise. California and Hawaii already have statewide domestic partnership laws, though not nearly as extensive as the Vermont court’s ruling would require.

But as people in Vermont speak out, almost no one can be heard promoting domestic partnerships. Those who support traditional marriage say domestic partnerships would undermine it. Those who support gay marriage say the state should settle for nothing less.

Dr. Dean attributes the sense of polarization to the current central forum of the state’s debate: two mass public hearings at the state House, one last week and one on Tuesday night, that have drawn well over 1,000 people each. (In a state of just 600,000 people, it could be that almost one-half of 1 percent of them have taken to the Capitol lately. The New York equivalent would be Albany hearings drawing 90,000 people.)

‘’It is self-selecting, of course,'’ Dr. Dean said. ‘’Look out your window. When it’s snowing like this, you’re not going to get up out of your cozy armchair in the middle of the Vermont winter to take the moderate path.'’

But a statewide poll – conducted Jan. 18-21 and sponsored by The Rutland Herald, The Barre-Montpelier Times Argus and WCAX Channel 3 News – bore out the depth of the state’s split. It found that 38 percent agreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling and 52 percent disagreed, while 10 percent remained unsure. Asked if they favored overturning the court’s ruling with a constitutional amendment, 49 percent said they did, while 44 percent opposed the idea.

Leaders of the Roman Catholic Church in the state, who have mobilized to oppose same-sex marriage, oppose domestic partnerships as well. They sponsored a rally outside the state House on Tuesday night that drew nearly 1,000 people.

Leaders of many other denominations, including Episcopal and United Methodist bishops and several rabbis, have come out strongly in favor of gay marriage as a way to strengthen the institution and defend civil rights. They, for their part, back full-fledged marriage, not partnership.

At the House hearings, virtually everyone wears either a pink sticker supporting gay marriage or a white sticker saying ‘’God’s plan – one woman one man'’ or ‘’Don’t mock marriage.'’ There are no domestic partnership stickers.

Thus far, the debate has been impeccably civil and both sides well behaved, prompting expressions of state pride from Dr. Dean and others. But many, like Representative Thomas A. Little, the Republican who heads the House committee holding hearings on same-sex marriage, fear that peace will not last.

Source : query.nytimes.com

Pressing a new case for the equal treatment of same-sex couples, San Francisco is moving to become the first major city in the country to require the companies with which it does business to offer health and other benefits to the unmarried partners of their employees.

The city’s Board of Supervisors passed legislation by a 10-to-0 vote on Monday to prohibit the city government from contracting with companies that do not make the same benefits available to employees’ domestic partners that they do to the married spouses of their workers. The measure will now go to the Mayor, Willie L. Brown Jr., has said he supports it in principle.

Domestic partnerships have been recorded by the City and County of San Francisco since 1991. But with 3,554 of them now on the books, officials said the proposed law would probably only affect a small number of people.

‘’I think it’s actually going to be very nominal in terms of its impact on businesses,'’ said one of the two gay supervisors who introduced the legislation, Leslie R. Katz. ‘’But we’re sending a message. Hopefully we will encourage companies to take a look at discrimination that they haven’t even looked at yet.'’

That message received a mixed response from the city’s business community.

Following the lead of the municipal government, some of the largest companies based in San Francisco, including The Gap and Levi Strauss & Company, have made health insurance, bereavement and medical leave and other benefits available to registered domestic partners for some time. While some of those companies applauded the bill, other local companies ranging from small hardware stores to big banks expressed qualms about the measure.

‘’Generally speaking, we think that it’s not good public policy for the city to tie its hands in the way that this ordinance mandates,'’ said a spokesman for Bank of America, Dennis Wyss. ‘’Ultimately, this ordinance could disadvantage San Francisco taxpayers by making it harder or more costly for the city to obtain services. It could force the city to pay more or accept lower quality services.'’

Neither Mr. Wyss, whose company employs almost 10,000 of its 93,000 workers in San Francisco, nor the representatives of several other local companies that publicly raised concerns about the legislation, said outright that their companies would fight the bill.

But some large companies, including Bank of America, have refused to extend health benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian employees after long and sometimes bitter debates within their ranks.

Several business officials also raised questions about the scope of the legislation, noting that the bill, if it were strictly interpreted, could be implied to, say, the airlines that pay gate fees at San Francisco International Airport. The bill would apply to future contracts between the city and the roughly 8,000 companies with which it does business, but not to the subcontractors of those companies or to those that do not now offer benefits to their employees’ spouses.

‘’We have some real concerns about it,'’ said Carol Piasente, a vice president of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. ‘’The real problem is for small businesses, as to whether they would be able to provide benefits to domestic partners. It’s going to put more local companies at a disadvantage because if you have employees here, it’s more likely that the employees would register and then you’d have to pay those benefits.'’

Aides to Mayor Brown stopped short of promising today that he would sign the measure, saying he would have to study it. But Ms. Katz is a mayoral appointee, and she and the other supervisors generally work under Mr. Brown’s tight supervision.

The measure also appeared to enjoy broad public support in a city where gay men and lesbians are more politically organized and active than any other in the country. The supervisor of the city’s Marriage License Bureau, Frederick B. Garcia, said more than 90 percent of the city’s domestic partnerships were between members of the same sex.

Source : query.nytimes.com

It was Dr. JOHNSON or some otherwise man who expressed the opinion that marriages would, as a rule, turn out more, happily if they were all arranged by the Lord Chancellor. If the courts were to take the …

Source : query.nytimes.com

The public be damned! better describes the action that the Suffolk County executive, Steve Levy, and his special labor-management committee took in bypassing the Legislature and extending health benefits to domestic partners (read nonmarital sexual partners) of county employees ('’Equal Coverage in Suffolk,'’ editorial, Aug. 1).

Already defeated in principle twice in the Legislature, this action conferring benefits on the homosexual partners and on the nonmarital heterosexual partners of county employees creates a substitute for marriage and at the same time discriminates and excludes by favoring only partnerships based on a criterion of illicit sexual relationships.

If domestic partnerships are to be recognized by law and become a title for benefits, they should include persons committed to live together for mutual support and security on other bases; for example, two sisters; or an adult child caring for an aged parent or a parent caring for a disabled child; or any two nonrelated adults living together on a permanent basis to meet an economic crunch.

Source : query.nytimes.com

Joseph Bruno, the new majority leader of the New York State Senate, has revealed a streak of intolerance and ignorance toward New York’s gay community.

Mr. Bruno, a Republican, made that plain this week when he barred unmarried Senate employees from receiving domestic-partnership health benefits available to all other state workers. He says he is concerned about the costs of the coverage, which the previous Governor, Mario Cuomo, negotiated with state employees’ unions. But Mr. Bruno’s real concern seems to have little to do with costs – they are likely to be modest for the Senate in any case – and everything to do with homophobia.

In his own words, spoken to a New York Post reporter, Mr. Bruno said he opposed subsidizing the “abnormal life style” of homosexuals, who he says “choose” their sexual orientation.

Mr. Bruno’s decision came just days after the state’s new Attorney General, Dennis Vacco, as one of his first official acts dropped homosexuals from the anti-discrimination hiring policy for his office that his two Democratic predecessors followed. Gov. George Pataki, to his credit, has said that he intends to retain the anti-discrimination protection and the domestic-partnership benefits for officials he personally appoints and that he will not attempt to renegotiate state labor contracts that allow domestic partnerships.

But it is not enough for Mr. Pataki to lead quietly by example. He needs to make some noise. So far he has shied from publicly criticizing Messrs. Bruno and Vacco. Yet as the state’s top political leader his duty is to speak against bigoted statements or actions, even when the messengers are other important Republican officials.

Mr. Pataki also needs to shed some of his own anti-homosexual baggage. As a candidate, he said he opposed legislation to extend civil rights protections to gay and lesbian New Yorkers. He ought to reconsider and, while he is at it, rebuke those among his colleagues who foster intolerance.

Source : query.nytimes.com

Northern Ireland — Two lesbians become the first gay couple in the United Kingdom to win legal recognition under a civil partnership Monday, a ceremony that attracted scorn from evangelical Christian protesters but praise from gay-rights activists.

Grainne Close, a social worker from Northern Ireland, and Shannon Sickels, a playwright from New York, were the first of several hundred gay couples exchanging vows nationwide this week — including Elton John and his longtime partner.

“We are delighted. Here’s to many more,” Sickels said after she and Close became the first public celebrants of a legally binding gay partnership at Belfast City Hall.

Northern Ireland, which in 1982 was the last region in the United Kingdom to legalize homosexuality, is now the first to grant gay couples the same legal protections as married heterosexuals. Scotland was to follow today, and England and Wales on Wednesday.

The measure is already in force in many other European countries. In the United States, more than a dozen states recognize some form of domestic partnerships or civil unions, but 11 states voted in November to ban gay marriage.

After a 30-minute ceremony featuring such songs as Dolly Parton’s “Touch Your Woman,” Sickels and Close posed for photographers displaying matching commitment rings of diamond and platinum, then dashed off for a reception. Scores of family, friends and gay-rights activists tossed flowers and rainbow-colored ribbons in their path.

“This is about making a choice to have our civil rights acknowledged and respected and protected as any human being,” said Sickels, 27, who met her 32-year-old partner in New York four years ago.

Civil unions

Denmark in 1989 became the first country to legislate for same-sex partnerships. Several other European Union members have followed suit: Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.

In the United States, more than a dozen states recognize some form of domestic partnerships or civil unions, but 11 states voted in November to ban gay marriage.

But in keeping with the exceptional conservatism of Northern Ireland society, their landmark festivities also drew a few dozen Protestant evangelicals who sang Gospel hymns and waved “Sodomy is sin” placards.

Gay-rights activists countered with their own bullhorn-assisted chants of support. A few wearing Hitler-style mustaches shadowed the evangelical crowd waving satirical placards that read, “Earth is flat” and “Bring back slavery.”

Some lesbian couples who arrived as guests suffered verbal harassment from the protesters, who called them “abominations” and warned of their impending damnation.

“The fact is that God instituted human marriage in the Garden of Eden, and it was one man with one woman. God has not changed that,” said the Rev. Ian Brown of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster.

Brown, a protest leader, said most people in Northern Ireland opposed what he called “sodomite propaganda” and homosexuals’ “perverse lifestyle.”

Such views are more widely held in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. Here, Roman Catholics and Protestants sometimes overcome their political hostility to protest jointly on traditional family issues.

Northern Ireland’s police force in May reported a surge in hate crimes against gays over the past two years. As Close and Sickels arrived at Belfast City Hall, an informal poll on Radio Ulster in Belfast registered about 70 percent opposition to civil partnerships.

But the protesters were heading off for lunch and Christmas shopping by the time the second civil partnership couple, Christopher Flanagan and Henry Kane of Belfast, arrived in matching white morning suits — and a pink stretch limousine.

Flanagan said the new law would protect them, ensuring that if one died, the other would inherit their property rather than relatives hostile to their relationship. “It’s given us legal status behind our relationship, if anything goes wrong,” he said.

The third couple, two women, did not want their names and personal information published.

Although Monday marked the first day for public civil-partnership ceremonies, English judges have granted several gay couples this legal protection, citing emergency circumstances.

One beneficiary was Matthew Roche, 46, who died of lung cancer the day after he and his partner, Christopher Cramp, were legally bound together Dec. 5 in Brighton, England.

On Wednesday, the General Register Office in England says 687 same-sex unions will gain legal recognition. By far the most intensely watched ceremony will be for Elton John and his partner of 12 years, Canadian filmmaker David Furnish. They plan to confirm their civil partnership at the Guildhall in the royal London suburb of Windsor.

The ceremonies come more than a year after the British Parliament approved the law in November 2004. Northern Ireland was first because it has a shorter registration deadline in matrimonial law than do other regions of the United Kingdom.

More : seattletimes.nwsource.com

We appreciate your coverage of Mayor David N. Dinkins’s announcement of executive orders to allow domestic partners in New York City to register their relationship with the city clerk, which confers certain noneconomic benefits (news article, Jan. . Yet we are dismayed that you omit mention of the suit filed the same day by a group of city employees demanding precisely what the executive orders lack.

The Coalition of Lesbian and Gay City Employees, four named city employees and four pseudonymous complainants, filed a complaint with the the city’s Commission on Human Rights. We seek full spousal benefits for all full-time city employees living in domestic partnerships, namely the same health, dental, retirement and death benefits conferred on the spouses of our heterosexual counterparts. This is the first suit by city employees to demand the full spectrum of economic benefits.

For the thousands of lesbian and gay city employees with uninsured partners, these economic benefits matter most. The executive orders permit bereavement leave, family leave without pay, visitation rights in municipal hospitals and correctional facilities, and provide that a registered domestic partnership is evidence of family for occupying or succeeding to rights in city housing.

Although these measures are welcome, they are noneconomic.

Without health benefits, domestic partnership registration for many is simply too risky. Indeed, based on experiences with employment discrimination, many lesbian and gay employees fear retaliation for declaring their domestic partnerships, notwithstanding the confidentiality provisions. However, if registration included nondiscriminatory qualification for benefits, more city employees would be motivated to take that step.

Contrary to the Mayor’s position, nothing prevents the city from providing full health benefits now. Other employers, such as Seattle, Montefiore Hospital, the Lotus Corporation and The Village Voice already offer such benefits to the domestic partners of employees. To deny full spousal benefits to lesbian and gay employees is to deny equal pay for equal work.

More : query.nytimes.com

Here in Massachusetts, voters gave themselves a giant tax cut. In Maine, they split down the middle over assisted suicide and gay rights. And in several states, they leaned toward changes in drug policy, from legalizing the medical use of marijuana to giving some drug offenders treatment instead of jail time.

Across the country, voters faced a bumper crop of initiatives – 204 in all, in 42 states – as they plowed through some longer-than-usual ballots, deciding directly on issues so tricky and tough that many a legislator surely felt relieved to see them punted to the people.

School voucher programs, for example: in both Michigan and California, ballot measures proposed major programs that would give parents vouchers worth several thousand dollars to send their children to private schools. Voter polls and early returns indicated that both went down to defeat.

And gay marriage: Nebraska and Nevada were both voting today on measures that would bar the recognition of gay marriage; the sweeping initiative in Nebraska would bar even the recognition of domestic partnerships. Both measures appeared to be passing, according to surveys of voters.

‘’There are tremendous social, fiscal and education issues on the ballot,'’ said M. Dane Waters, the president of the Initiative and Referendum Institute in Washington. ‘’I think it has something to do with the presidential election cycle, and people trying to take advantage of the presidential candidates talking about these issues. There’s not a single theme, though, because both liberals and conservatives are using the process.'’

Other knotty issues abounded.

On gun control, both Colorado and Oregon voted on whether to require background checks on purchasers of weapons even at gun shows. The one in Colorado appeared to be passing, according early returns.

On drug policy, Alaska voters appeared to be rejecting a measure that would legalize the use of marijuana for people 18 and older and grant amnesty to people who had been convicted of marijuana crimes in the past.

Less radical drug policies were on the ballots in California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon and Utah. Colorado and Nevada appeared to be passing initiatives approving the medical use of marijuana, bringing the tally of states with such laws to eight. Utah and Oregon were both leaning toward measures to change laws that allowed law enforcement authorities to seize property connected to drug offenses.

California appeared well on its way to passing a measure to let non-violent, low-level drug offenders substitute treatment for jail time, but Massachusetts leaned against such a measure, according to early returns.

Measures to limit urban sprawl, too, appeared on some ballots, particularly in Western states, but they appeared to be faring poorly, Mr. Waters said. There were also proposals to limit the rate at which property taxes could be raised in Washington State and Alaska, and the early word from Washington was that its measure was passing. And in a possible victory for environmentalists, voter polls and early returns indicated that voters favored a statewide light-rail system in Florida.

Arizona voters appeared to be endorsing a proposal to end bilingual education in the state and immerse students in the study of English instead. Californians approved a similar proposal two years ago.

In South Carolina, a proposal for a lottery to raise money for education passed easily, according to surveys of voters leaving the polls. Gov. Jim Hodges, a Democrat, had made the lottery measure a centerpiece of his campaign two years ago.

In Maine, the Bangor Daily News projected that the two most sensitive social issues on the ballot – to legalize physician-assisted suicide and a law protecting gays from discrimination – were too close to call.

Here in Massachusetts, residents appeared to be voting down an initiative that would have required universal health care coverage, apparently heeding dire warnings from top figures in the medical establishment that it could wreck the state’s health care system. The warnings were backed up by nearly $5 million in spending.

Source : query.nytimes.com

California voters recently passed Proposition 22, which says that only marriages between men and women are officially recognized, and yet the state legislature already extends some benefits to domestic partnerships. In December, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled pretty much the same thing: gay couples cannot be deprived of the legal benefits enjoyed by married heterosexuals. In both cases, the usual brigade of talking heads bobbed across my television screen screaming that these cases constituted an assault on marriage.

I’ll say. This is what marriage has come to? A bunch of pension rollover deferments, tax loopholes and health-care portability abatements? Now, I’m a straight first-time husband with two legitimate kids, and according to America’s family-values czar, the thrice-married Representative Bob Barr of Georgia, my love-laced nest is the source of all that is good and true in this world (where are my royalties?) and is now under siege. I happen to think Barr is right. But it’s not gay folks I’m worried about; it’s Adam Smith. Increasingly, marriage is being recast as just another budget item in everyone’s personal finance portfolio.

The House just passed a bill reducing the ‘’marriage tax penalty.'’ Prenuptial agreements were once optional instruments for multimillionaires; now legal Web sites instruct us that ‘’every couple should and must have a prenuptial agreement or marriage contract.'’

In our pop culture, the wife or husband as economic object is now a routine Hollywood plot device. Ever since ‘’Indecent Proposal,'’ that consumerist reworking of the fabled droit du seigneur, and all the way up to the recent ‘’The Bachelor'’ (Chris O’Donnell must marry somebody by a certain date or lose the big inheritance), the message is clear: next to money, romance is second-rate bunk. Must I mention Rick Rockwell and ‘’Who Wants to Marry a Multimillionaire?'’ At one point the show’s proposed host was none other than Marla Maples.

Increasingly, marriage is being converted into a neo-feudal property arrangement for the Nasdaq gentry. Even dating these days is understood as little more than the discovery period before the big merger. WB’s new dating show, ‘’Change of Heart,'’ arranges for a boy or girl who is going out with someone to date someone else and then come on the show to discuss the two before deciding between them. You may recognize this process. It’s called comparison shopping.

What is happening to marriage is the culmination of the market’s radical reshaping of the culture at large. The invisible hand is tearing away the ideals that once held together most of our institutions. Hospitals used to operate under some unwritten notion of altruism. Now patients are ‘’health care consumers'’ told to shop among various doctors or ‘’gatekeepers'’ whose new duties include monitoring the flow of gross costs.

Schools are also undergoing a similar metaphorical shift with a customer-clerk relationship replacing the old student-teacher one. The Dewey principle of public education for all? Let ‘em eat vouchers. Even churches have hired market consultants, and now the surging congregations out West gather in huge warehouse temples selling spirituality the way Home Depot moves precut lumber. It makes sense that love would go the same way – just another failed ideology, like communism, collapsing in the path of the market’s indiscriminate force to lay bare the economic decision at the core.

According to the academics, this is where marriage began. Feudal dads chose their children’s spouses to upwardly mobilize themselves. Romantic passion is said to be a cultural construction that dates from the 12th-century poetic tradition of courtly love and developed into a new ideal of romance in the court of Eleanor of Aquitaine. Then, the story goes, the growing humanism of the Renaissance and the Industrial Age emancipated men and women to become wild romantic honeys – like Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald or Nick and Nora Charles.

I’ve never bought this stuff. Maybe that’s how it developed for some Burgundian merchant class. But I spent four college years with my face in a Lewis & Short dictionary translating Latin. Horace’s Pyrrha, Catullus’s Lesbia. Trust me, romantic love predated the French

Source : query.nytimes.com

The Star Tribune of Minneapolis broke new ground for metropolitan newspapers today when it published two announcements of lesbian “domestic partnerships” on what had traditionally been its wedding and engagement page.

Smaller newspapers on the West Coast, including the Herald of Everett, near Seattle, and the Marin Independent Journal, near San Francisco, recently adopted similar policies and received harsh criticism from readers and religious groups.

Bette Fenton, a Star Tribune spokeswoman, in announcing the policy last week, said it was “a natural response” to a new Minneapolis city ordinance allowing domestic partners to register their relationships with the city. Tw